The UK’s electoral watchdog is currently flying blind. A powerful investigation from Byline Times has this week exposed how Nigel Farage’s party, Reform UK, is once again shitting on democracy. By exploiting a very obvious and gaping loophole in the political finance system and accepting cryptocurrency donations, Farage is now able to hide who and where he is getting his dirty money from. And the Electoral Commission has finally admit that this is a huge fucking problem.

This danger isn’t theoretical. It’s an immediate and deliberate risk to our entire democracy.

A digital black hole in democracy

Reform UK is the only major political party in the UK actively soliciting funds through cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Tether. And they have downright refused to share its “digital wallet addresses” with the Electoral Commission.

Think of a wallet address like a transparent bank account number. Whilst a traditional bank account is hidden behind corporate walls, a crypto wallet address is public and has an ID. Anyone with the address can look at the “blockchain” which has a permanent, digital ledger and can see exactly how much money is moving in and out in real time.

Reform UK is accepting cryptocurrency donations. Farage has admitted receiving some. Nothing has been declared to the Electoral Commission.

This week Nigel Farage personally invested £215,000 in a Bitcoin company alongside https://t.co/K3JSqvVFAT, the same firm that gave $5… pic.twitter.com/N0HgVZiBD6

— Jack Dart (@JackWDart) March 11, 2026

By withholding these addresses, Reform is effectively shielding it’s donations from scrutiny. The Electoral Commission is left unable to independently monitor the flow of funds or verify the source of the party’s wealth. Instead, the regulator can only rely on what the party chooses to declare in regards to its finances.

This is a disastrous blind spot. Whilst traditional donations create a paper trail which can be scrutinised, unregulated crypto allows for total anonymity. To date, not a single party has declared a crypto donation to the Commission. So why the fuck have Reform been publicly touting its “crypto-hub” status for months without scrutiny?

Nigel Farage’s Polish shield and North Korea links

Reform UK feeds its crypto donations through a Polish registered company called Radom Pay. By doing this, the party has placed a legal shield between themselves and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Whilst the UK regulator can demand records from domestic firms, their reach ends at the border.

The Polish crypto register is effectively a financial wild west. Anyone can get a license there in just 14 days. This register previously housed the Cambodian Huione syndicate which was sanctioned for laundering $4bn in illicit funds.

And shockingly, the same register has been used to launder money from cyber attacks by North Korean state-sponsored hackers to finance Pyongyang’s weapons programme. In 2025 alone these hackers stole a ridiculous $2bn in crypto, which accounted for 60% of all funds stolen globally.

And by using this same system, Reform are spitting on our entire democratic structure. They are inviting the same blackhole money into the heart of our politics and it can come from anywhere.

It’s a whack-a-mole loophole

The mechanics of this financial blind spot are tailored for anonymity. Under UK law any political donation under £500 doesn’t have to be reported. This creates a massive opening for “smurfing”. This means a single bad faith actor can use an AI automated script to split a massive donation into thousands of £499 micro-donations. And these can be sent from burner wallets, making it fucking impossible for the Electoral Commission to see the coordinated source of the funds. Meaning, they can come from anyone, anywhere.

The scale of this is already buck wild. Reform’s largest donor, Christopher Harborne is a major investor in Tether. He’s donated £12m to the party since 2025. In the final three months of 2025 Reform out-raised both the Labour and Conservative parties combined. They raked in a shocking £5.5m in reportable donations.

Thailand-based crypto tycoon Christopher Harborne gave another £3m to Reform in Q4 2025 boosting Farage’s war chest. His £12m total in 2025 makes him the party’s biggest donor — accounting for 24% of all political donations to every UK partyhttps://t.co/NqNKzbaRuC

— Brexitshambles (@brexit_sham) March 5, 2026

So… how much are they raking in from these dodgy anonymous crypto donations?

A billionaire pincer movement?

This is part of a broader attempt to replace our public control with a private, technological power. Whilst Farage uses unregulated crypto to stay off of the financial grid, his billionaire backers are working to put the UK’s public data into their own grid.

And this brings us to Palantir. Peter Thiel, the democracy-sceptic billionaire behind the company, is a key figure in the same “National Conservatism” movement that underpins Reform.

Yet the establishment remains complicit. The “Mandelson Papers” revealed to us that Keir Starmer ignored warnings about Peter Mandelson and his ties to both Russia and Jeffrey Epstein. This same web of lobbyists helped Palantir secure £500m in NHS and Ministry of Defence contracts without a single competitor.

They are creating a system where the public is entirely transparent to the powerful. Yet the powerful remain invisible to the public.

Nigel Farage happy to put our sovereignty up for sale

The Electoral Commission is currently bringing a pen-knife to a gun fight. It is taking “specialist external advice” because it lacks the internal expertise to track these digital transactions.

The UK government is under a shit load of pressure to act. The Rycroft Review, which is an independent inquiry into foreign financial interference, is due in March. And this is going to be a fucking doozy. Steve Reed, the Secretary of State of Housing, Communities and Local Government has suggested the findings from this review will inform the Representation of the People Bill.

The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy has already called for an immediate “binding moratorium” on crypto donations to keep politics safe from “illicit finance”.

Nigel Farage claims to be the champion of UK sovereignty. However, the evidence suggests he is quite happy to surrender that sovereignty to unregulated foreign platforms and the dark money network of rogue states.

To put it simply, Farage is a dodgy wanker who needs to declare his party’s finances.

Featured image via the Guardian

A ‘Subject Access Request’ (SAR) by left-wing MP and former shadow chancellor John McDonnell has given a further glimpse at the extent of the spying and plotting of scandal-riddled Israel lobby-funded ‘Labour Together’ against the Labour left.

An SAR is a statutory mechanism, under UK data law, for individuals to demand an organisation reveal what information it holds on them. McDonnell made an SAR to APCO, the firm contracted by Labour Together to spy on journalists who were investigating Labour Together’s plots against the party’s left.

Labour Together

Labour Together was run by Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s disgraced former chief of staff — and then by now-resigned Starmer front-bencher Josh Simons. Both are ardent Israel supporters. But the response to McDonnell’s SAR reveals the extent of the group’s apparent plotting to take over the party even more thoroughly. Or, more accurately, it reveals it by not revealing it.

APCO’s legally-obligated reply to McDonnell’s is little more file after file of black redaction, with nothing else showing than — usually single-line — mentions of McDonnell himself. The rest is redacted as supposedly “personally identifiable information”. Like this one, in which only an anodyne line about McDonnell is revealed:

Yet the document is marked “Confidential”, despite supposedly showing nothing that isn’t available in the public record — and heavily redacted to black out what is presumably other, equally public information. Or this one, also marked confidential despite showing nothing but information about seats and majorities that could easily be found in moments online — McDonnell’s entry is on a subsequent page that doesn’t show the headers:

More redactions

A few hint at potential plans to oust or undermine, or to coordinate communication campaigns, like this “Communication plan”, made while McDonnell was still shadow chancellor under Jeremy Corbyn, in which line after line is, you’ve guessed it, blacked out:

When the information redacted is publicly available and not sensitive, then the question becomes one of the purpose of the document — why was Labour Together paying a company to put together lists that could easily be compiled from Google, or the parliamentary website? And why doesn’t APCO — and presumably Labour Together — want to hide even the names of the people it was listing.

Was it a targeting aid for the Labour Right’s coordinated and underhanded deselection programme to winnow out MPs it wanted replaced by Starmer clones? Was it a list of MPs to be targeted for the hostile briefings Labour Together is now known to have conducted until Corbyn was removed? Something else?

Whatever it was, Labour Together thought it was worth spending money on. And, based on its disgraceful track record, that can’t mean anything good for the country or the working class.

The intergovernmental UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) is the UN’s largest annual forum on gender equality. Its 70th session concludes on 19 March at UN HQ in New York. This year’s priority theme under discussion was:

‘Ensuring and strengthening access to justice for all women and girls, including by promoting inclusive and equitable legal systems, eliminating discriminatory laws, policies, and practices, and addressing structural barriers.’

“However”, said Shobha Shukla:

for the first time in the 70 years’ history of CSW, the outcome document was adopted via a formal vote rather than by consensus, thanks to the retaliatory stand taken by the US.

The US introduced 8 oral amendments aimed at altering the draft text to align with its own positions on issues including against abortion, gender identity, and diversity, equity and inclusion. But these 8 amendments proposed by the US were defeated by other UN Member States or countries (by a vote of 26 to 1, with 14 countries abstaining).

Shukla is the host of SHE & Rights (a campaign to advance gender equality and the human right to health). She’s also the founder executive director of CNS.

Shukla added:

Ultimately, the CSW70 document was adopted with 37 votes in favour and 1 against (the US), and 14 abstentions (including Nigeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia).

This rare break from consensus to a vote highlights widening global political divides over gender rights and is a sign of increasing pressure and pushback against existing human rights language, particularly regarding gender equality.

Is the outcome document of CSW70 good enough?

Maitree Muzumdar is co-founder of Feminist Manch and co-convener of the Young Feminist Caucus and the Women’s Rights Caucus. She agreed that CSW70 negotiations took place amid a global rollback of rights, shrinking civic space, rising authoritarianism and militarism, and deepening economic crisis.

Muzumdar lamented that:

Governments (UN Member States) approached access to justice as a technical issue rather than a political issue, focusing on procedural reforms without addressing the structural conditions that produce injustice. This allows governments to avoid confronting the political interests and power relations that sustain injustice.

In many contexts, governments themselves are responsible for serious human rights violations through misuse of security laws, policing, and impunity of armed forces used to justify repression and criminalisation against communities demanding justice.

These patterns of repression also appear in laws that criminalise LGBTQI+ communities, regulate women and gender diverse people’s bodies such as through restrictions on abortion, and render people illegal. The refusal to name discriminatory laws, dilution of commitments under sovereignty clause, and phrases like ‘as applicable’ allow existing social, political, and economic hierarchies to remain untouched.

Gender equality threatened by corporate capture

Commenting on the deliberations at CSW70, Mazumdar said:

There has also been reluctance to address the impunity of the private sector in the privatisation of essential public services, climate injustice, human rights violations, and development projects that deepen inequalities between countries and people.

These harms are closely tied to development models that prioritise economic growth and profit over people’s rights. Yet, these models remained unquestioned, making strong corporate accountability and reparative remedies essential.

Advertisement

These realities demand stronger accountability for human rights violations committed by both state and non-state actors. Justice cannot exist without democratising power and resources or confronting the systems that produce injustice.

Argentine feminist activist Josefina Sabate is part of the Political Advocacy unit at FUSA Asociacion Civil. She agrees the CSW70 process has taken place in a highly adverse political context and the outcome document is not as progressive as we might have wished. For her:

access to justice is not merely a technical matter. Women and girls face numerous obstacles – legal, financial, geographical, and institutional barriers – that hinder their access to justice, bodily autonomy, sexual and reproductive health services, and mechanisms for redress and reparation.

However, this agenda faces significant resistance in Latin America. Many countries in this region stand in opposition to this agenda. Colombia, fortunately, is one of the few nations in the region that continues to champion these rights.

Ayshka Najib is a climate and gender justice advocate and co-convener of the Young Feminist Caucus. Najib pointed out that:

justice for women and girls is systematically obstructed by patriarchal, militarised, and fascist systems manifested through war economies, arms trade, corporate capture, and fossil fuel-based extractive models that dispossess indigenous communities.

Achieving justice requires the dismantling of these systems, redistribution of power, demilitarisation, protection and expansion of civic spaces, and the meaningful leadership of feminist movements.

Lack of gender equality in systems of justice

Maluseu Doris Tulifau, a Samoan feminist and founder of Brown Girl Woke, shared the travails of Pacific women – women with disabilities, LGBT+ communities, migrants, and rural women – who continue to face multiple intersecting barriers to justice:

From a Pacific perspective, justice is not experienced through a single system. Women navigate a continuum of justice systems: formal courts, customary governance, faith-based authority, and family negotiation.

For most of the Pacific women, particularly in rural, remote, and outer island communities, customary and community-based justice mechanisms remain the primary entry point for justice.

But women are also clear-eyed about the limitations. In cases of family and sexual violence, customary processes often prioritise reconciliation or compensation over women’s safety and accountability for harm.

Advertisement

Family reputation, church authority, and social hierarchy frequently pressure survivors to remain silent about violence and this cultural silence protects the perpetrators.

Women also confront broader structural challenges. Climate change, rising seas, displacement, extreme weather conditions are intensifying poverty, insecurity, and violence against women and girls across small island countries.

Also, without economic security women cannot leave violent situations or pursue legal action. But decades of neoliberal economic policies across the Pacific have weakened the very systems that women rely on for protection and justice.

Technology-facilitated violence is yet another serious justice issue. Digital harassment, exploitation, and surveillance are increasingly affecting women and girls across the region.

Tulifau lamented that at the global level also, Pacific voices remain structurally excluded. Small island states and grassroots organizations face visa barriers, funding limitations, and structural exclusion from global spaces like CSW.

Social development specialist Asel Dunganaeva, from Kyrgyzstan, said:

Across Asia, justice systems remain inaccessible, under-resourced, and attacked by patriarchy and inequality. These systems often exist in law but not in lived experience.

Women may have rights on paper but face stigma, fear of retaliation, lack of legal aid, and economic dependency that prevents them from claiming those rights. Discriminatory laws and colonial legal legacies continue to control women’s bodies, restrict sexuality and identity, and criminalise marginalised communities.

Even when legal reforms exist, implementation remains weak. We are witnessing a disturbing rollback of women’s human rights and protections against gender-based violence are weakening.

Advertisement

Technology-facilitated gender-based violence has also become a powerful tool of control. Cyber-stalking, doxing, online harassment weaponises sexuality and identity to silence diverse women and girls.

Also, for millions of women across Asia, the first experience of injustice is not in a courtroom, it is in the economic systems in which women live. Debt-driven development, austerity policies, and economic inequality are driving public resources away from healthcare, education, and social protection, making justice even more inaccessible for women and communities already living on the margins.

Shrinking space for feminist voices of the global south

Despite civil society participation being central to the effectiveness and legitimacy of the CSW, many African women and girls face restrictive access to participation. Visa bans and visa denials based on age and location make it difficult for them to participate in UN processes like CSW. That’s the view of Michelle Anzaya, communications professional and feminist leader from Africa. She added:

For those who are able to travel, concerns around racial profiling, surveillance, and safety further undermine the ability of advocates to engage freely and safely in global policy spaces. We are also witnessing the growing influence of anti-rights actors within multilateral spaces.

This imbalance risks distorting participation and weakening the accountability that global gender equality processes depend on, and the global agenda risks being shaped without the voices of those who are most directly affected by inequality and injustice.

Advertisement

Anzaya shared that in response to these challenges, African feminist movements are building new spaces for engagement and solidarity:

Initiatives like ‘Africa Disrupts CSW’ demonstrate the power of African feminists to ensure that African realities and lived experiences inform global gender equality debates.

National and regional CSW hubs are also emerging, like in Uganda, Gambia, and Cameroon. By creating local spaces for engagement, these alternatives are democratising participation and strengthening feminist movement building across the continent.

Anzaya also highlighted the need for vigilance about broader challenges to women’s rights:

African feminists have raised concerns about proposals such as the draft African Charter on Family Values and Sovereignty, which risks undermining existing regional human rights protections (like the Maputo Protocol) and rolling back hard-won gains for women, girls, and marginalised communities.

Feminists call upon government leaders to deliver on gender equality and justice

Anzaya calls upon governments or UN member states, UN leadership, and the CSW Bureau to uphold meaningful, holistic, and inclusive participation as a core principle of CSW processes.

And she wants them to address the structural and systemic barriers that continue to limit the effective participation of women and civil society from the global south, including the restrictive visa regimes.

Also, any discussions on reforms to the UN system must reinforce and not weaken the global architecture for gender equality and ensure that CSW outcomes reflect the lived realities and priorities of women and girls across all regions.

Shiphrah Belonguel, global advocacy officer at Fòs Feminista, reiterates:

We are fighting for strong language on multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination that impact access to justice. We are fighting for sexual reproductive health and rights and bodily autonomy as central to access to justice.

We are emphasising that sexual and gender-based violence encompasses harmful acts rooted in structural gender inequalities and power imbalances. These are systemic injustices that justice systems must be equipped to confront.

Sai Jyothirmai Racherla is deputy executive director of the Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women. She emphasises that human rights, equality and justice are core to sustainable development. We also need to look at redistributive justice- economic, gender, ecological accountability – and prioritise marginalised people and environmental sustainability over profit.

And as Dunganaeva remarked:

Justice demands redistribution of power and resources, demilitarisation of economies, and decolonisation of global governments. It requires dismantling systems of power that perpetuate inequality. Without transforming these structural conditions, access to justice cannot be realised.

Featured image via the Canary

The Tories’ shadow justice minister, Nick Timothy, has shamefully called an iftar gathering in Trafalgar Square an “act of domination”. Party leader Kemi Badenoch then doubled down by stating that Timothy was “defending British values”. What, the values of Islamophobia and racism?

Starmer called the Conservatives out during PMQs, stating that the party has a “problem with Muslims”. This is obviously true, given that the Tories are made up of various stripes of raging bigot. However, it’s also deeply hypocritical coming from a Labour party that’s also got a clear Islamophobia problem.

Iftar: ‘there’s always a place at the table’

The 16 March event was organised by the Ramadan Tent Project charity, which seeks to improve relationships between communities. It was one of 18 ‘Open Iftar’ meals held across the UK.

Among the thousands who attended the Trafalgar Square event was London mayor Sadiq Khan, who took to Twitter to state that:

Community isn’t just where we live, it’s how we look after one another.

Tonight, people of all faiths, races and backgrounds came together in the heart of our capital to break their fasts at Ramadan Tent Project’s Open Iftar.

There’s always a place at the table in this city. pic.twitter.com/Zt5ubJDDRu

— Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan (@MayorofLondon) March 16, 2026

However, a charity bringing people together to share food for an iftar meal is apparently a step too far for Tory Nick Timothy. On the night of the event, the far-right gobshite logged on to Twitter to complain:

Too many are too polite to say this.

But mass ritual prayer in public places is an act of domination.

The adhan – which declares there is no god but allah and Muhammad is his messenger – is, when called in a public place, a declaration of domination.

Perform these rituals in… pic.twitter.com/PIfJAgb7Zk

— Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

Note, in particular, Timothy’s use of ‘ritual’ here. Sure, depending on your theology, a prayer could be considered a ritual – but Timothy is trying to mystify the adhan to make it sound like some sinister cult practice.

Likewise, it’s also worth pointing out that the whole ‘there is no god but Allah‘ bit is, you know, kind of foundational for a monotheistic religion. It’s right there in the name. Likewise, it’s a belief shared by other dangerous Islamists like Charles III, the king of bloody Britain.

‘Utterly appalling’

Starmer took the opportunity to condemn Timothy’s nakedly Islamophobic rant in the Commons the next day. During PMQs, he called for Badenoch to sack her party member:

He said last night that Muslims praying in public, including the mayor of London practising his faith, are not welcome.

If he was in my team, he’d be gone. It’s utterly appalling. She should denounce his comments and she should sack him.

Advertisement

The Labour leader also drew a parallel between the shadow justice minister and fascist shit-stirrer Tommy Robinson:

Even Tommy Robinson, I can hardly believe I’m saying this, has said today that if the shadow justice secretary had made these hateful comments two years ago the Conservative Party would have kicked him out.

Tommy Robinson isn’t some sort of moral signpost, he was pointing out how much their party has changed. They’re more inclined to his views, and he’s right about that. The fact he’s sitting on her front bench shows she’s too weak and has got absolutely no judgement.

‘The Tory Party has got a problem with Muslims’

Later, Starmer went on to say that:

When I see religious events in Trafalgar Square, when I see Hindus celebrating Diwali, when I see Jews celebrating Chanukah live, when I see Christians performing the Passion of the Christ, or Muslims praying, that shows the great strength of our diverse city and country.

I’ve never heard her party call out anything other than the Muslim events. It’s only when Muslims are praying. The only conclusion is the Tory Party has got a problem with Muslims.

Advertisement

It’s true that Trafalgar is regularly used for religious events of all stripes. Sadiq Khan echoed a similar sentiment on Twitter, posting:

Here’s an Iftar on Trafalgar Square.

And here’s Easter, Diwali, Vaisakhi and Chanukah.

London is, and will always be, a place for everyone. #UnityOverDivision https://t.co/bqUNBaL0og pic.twitter.com/wm8tvEL6QQ

— Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan (@MayorofLondon) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

Likewise, as we stated earlier, the fact that the Tories are a bunch of Islamophobic bigots is a given. However, this attack from Starmer is bloody rich, given that his own party has massively ramped up its Muslim-bashing in recent years.

Just look at their abandonment of the term ‘Islamophobia’, their hierarchy of racism that repeatedly minimises attacks on Muslims, and the party’s inaction on Islamophobia in the NHS. And that’s not even mentioning Labour’s active participation in the genocide of the Palestinian people.

‘Defending British values’

In response to Starmer’s statements, Kemi Badenoch stated that Timothy was “defending British values”.

Now, this is true if – and only if – we hold that Islamophobia itself is a British value. The Tories clearly believe that – Timothy’s rant was an open attack on Muslims praying in public, and his party leader stood by it.

Timothy didn’t condemn Christian, Jewish or Hindu worshippers in the same setting. He singled out Muslims, because he and his party have a problem with Muslims.

However, that hatred of Muslims is, increasingly, becoming a British value. Along with it, racism, fascism and white-supremacist politics are being mainstreamed.

This vague appeal to ‘British values’ is a trap. ‘British values are multicultural’. ‘Christianity is a British value’. ‘Helping those in need is a British value’. ‘Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is a British value’.

As Badenoch succinctly demonstrated, British values are a shifting, nebulous concept which allows politicians to make their appeals to whichever way public sentiment sways at the time.

If Timothy, Badenoch and their ilk are what British values look like, they can fucking keep them.

Eid Mubarak.

Featured image via the Canary

Contrary to US President Donald Trump’s expectations NATO has refused to join the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran.

In usual ego-driven fashion, Trump is attempting to gaslight and shame NATO into submission. However, his cynical attempts are increasingly revealing just how embarrassing and pathetically childish the ‘leader of the Western world’ really is.

This will likely be restoring hope amongst Britons that there is a red line for European leaders when working with the US. A red line that many feared did not exist with its member states’ complicity in the genocide on Gaza, which has murdered tens of thousands of Palestinians since October 7th, 2023.

Pres. Trump said he believes NATO is making a “very foolish mistake” in not helping the U.S. in the war with Iran.

“I’ve long said that, I wonder whether or not NATO would ever be there for us. So, this was a great test. Because we don’t need them, but they should have been… pic.twitter.com/RaqKWq3XvA

Advertisement

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 17, 2026

Trump in over his head

The US and Israel began waging their brutal war of aggression on Iran, and prolonged Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, at the end of February 2026. Since that attack, many have found relief in seeing NATO leaders largely refrain from giving their support to Trump, despite his protestations. Now Trump is threatening to leave NATO and take his funding with him, in a naked attempt to muster up support.

Attacks on oil infrastructure are hitting the world’s richest where it hurts. As a result, a potential world war looms as obviously the priority is private profits; not people. Nevertheless, the only way to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is to end the war of aggression which prompted Iran’s move to counterattack.

Until those calls come thick and fast, Iran is simply following Western precedents in using financial pain to defend its interests:

“This could be World War Three!”

Glenn Beck warns that if Trump and NATO do not manage to reopen the Strait of Hormuz soon, it “will collapse the economy of the West”.

📺https://t.co/aVEfspFSVf@piersmorgan | @glennbeck pic.twitter.com/377LYvoBpS

— Piers Morgan Uncensored (@PiersUncensored) March 18, 2026

Leavitt: “Trump calls out NATO for being what he believes is an unfair alliance for American people”

Trump thinks NATO is “unfair” for not joining his war for Israel. They’re not unfair-they’re just not dumb enough to die for a foreign country’s agenda. pic.twitter.com/HvFz7a6i23

Advertisement

— Ounka (@OunkaOnX) March 18, 2026

100,000 could lose their jobs in the UK

We have written extensively on the war on Iran given the mainstream media’s reluctance to provide neutral, unbiased and fair coverage on yet another illegal military operation in the Middle East. Not only does the war carry fatal consequences for innocent Iranian and Lebanese civilians, but it will also impact citizens at home in the UK. Our Alex/Rose Cocker wrote:

Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal war on Iran has sent energy prices skyrocketing. The effect on energy-intensive industries in the UK has been immediate and severe. And, as a knock-on effect, as many as 100,000 jobs could be lost across the UK.

Of course, we won’t shed a tear for the impact on highly polluting industries themselves. However, the situation is a striking illustration of the vulnerability created by the UK’s desperate reliance on increasingly volatile fossil fuels.

Thankfully, that resistance is being maintained, and Trump is being left to look like the deranged, sociopathic, self-interested leader that he is.

Despite pressure, the US is receiving a loud resounding ‘No’ apparently:

🚨 US President Trump has asked the world to help US and send warships to Strait of Hormuz to re-open it.

He didn’t get POSITIVE response. US closet NATO allies have also refused to send any warships to Hormuz.

🇬🇧 UK: NO
🇮🇹 Italy: NO
🇪🇸 Spain: NO
🇯🇵 Japan: NO
🇷🇺Russia: NO
🇫🇷…

— South Asia Index (@SouthAsiaIndex) March 16, 2026

Advertisement

German 🇩🇪 Leader Alice Weidel:

“Trump now wants help for Iran, This suggests that they entered this mission without any brain, the Americans did not think about an exit strategy or how this is supposed to continue”

Every NATO member is grilling Trump 🔥pic.twitter.com/FfpPYX612I

— Roshan Rai (@RoshanKrRaii) March 18, 2026

This X account detailed how actions have consequences:

NATO wasn’t created to be a clean-up squad for the US.

Had Trump involved allies in planning and had he not spent the past few months trash-talking NATO, hitting allies with tariffs and threatening to annexe European territory by force, things might be different.

Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that some within NATO appear to feel otherwise. Mark Rutte, Chief of NATO, recently gave the impression that the alliance is there to provide a ‘platform for the US to project power’. This highlights that NATO reluctance isn’t guaranteed; some within it are more than happy to prioritise power over people.

Q: “Trump didn’t consult NATO before the war. Why should they help now?”

Leavitt: “NATO allies benefit more from the Strait reopening than the US does.”

Trump launched a war for Israel. Now he’s asking NATO to clean it up. Because they “benefit.” Benefit from a war they never… pic.twitter.com/qNriAYpE9f

Advertisement

— Ounka (@OunkaOnX) March 18, 2026

More allies turning their backs on Trump by the day

Criticism of Trump is growing, with even those who have demonised Iranian people and denied their legal right to self-defence now holding the US president to account.

Former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro isn’t best pleased with Trump signaling his friends are turning on him:

Unjustified? So Iran has just to accept any atrocity and not hit back?
You are nuts.

— Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) March 19, 2026

Advertisement

A recent Truth Social post suggests Trump knows he is losing control:

Trump moves to rein in Israel after IDF strikes South Pars gas field, sparking massive Iranian response on Qatari LNG

“Israel, out of anger for what has taken place in the Middle East, has violently lashed out at a major facility known as South Pars Gas Field in Iran.”

The man… pic.twitter.com/XqA89jTBFU

— HatsOff (@HatsOffff) March 19, 2026

Advertisement

Despite his best attempts, world leaders are increasingly turning their backs on bully Trump and the American empire:

The American empire is completely isolated. Trump threatened to literally invade a NATO ally just six weeks ago, never consulted them about attacking Iran, and is now crying that they won’t join his disastrous war. The world is turning its back on Washington. pic.twitter.com/KPGdo3ixnO

— Furkan Gözükara (@FurkanGozukara) March 18, 2026

Karma is a bitch, after all. Trump has long threatened the safety of apparent NATO allies, as this post from 2024 shows:

BREAKING: The NATO Secretary General says any attack will be met with “forceful response” after Donald Trump said he would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” if it attacked a NATO country that didn’t pay enough for defencehttps://t.co/PAiZ4D1jU3

📺 Sky 501 pic.twitter.com/2PANYPpFYA

Advertisement

— Sky News (@SkyNews) February 11, 2024

A red line finally appears for NATO

Trump has made endless protestations that other states aren’t spending enough on defence compared to the US, who have long been captured by the military industrial machine. He has gone so far as to withhold support from supposed “allies” unless they commit billions more to military spending. In practice, as with Israel, this approach suggests the US would grant Russia considerable freedom in waging its aggression if toddler-tyrant Trump doesn’t get what he wants.

Hardly a win for citizens across the entire world who fear this new world order of ‘might is always right’ will in time hurt their own families and communities when bombs and bullets fall further afield. A world order that our own leaders have been more than happy to bow down to.

Now it appears that NATO are leveraging their own power and influence, finally seeming to recognise the existence of international law, shocking millions. In contrast to the US demanding higher profits for the military machine, NATO states are now refusing to legitimise the US and Israel’s contravention of the rules-based order. Don’t get me wrong, they could do a hell of a lot more, but it’s a positive change of tack.

Nonetheless, two superpowers are going head-to-head, and we should not take that lightly.

Let’s hope this spoilt president can learn new tricks in his old age and finally understand the meaning of ‘no’. A skill his victims would likely dispute is possible.

Ultimately, the only solution is an urgent regime change in the West to stand the faintest chance of global peace and prosperity.

Featured image via the Canary

On  17 March 2026, students gathered outside Leeds University to protest their institution’s continued affiliation with the forces waging genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. Stationed in front of the student union, they basked in the spring sunshine, determined to make their voices heard.

A beautiful day to be in Leeds!

As I arrived I was surprised to find a hostile neighbourhood auditor skulking around. Another arrived shortly after. 

A creep with a bad camera, watching live streams of young women on campus on a Tuesday lunchtime and stalking students on campus—is no one’s idea of normal. These people are fucking weirdos.

At one point, university security staff were seen chatting casually with auditors on camera for their live streams.

This was after one of the auditors had earlier attempted to intimidate a student.

Questions need to be raised about why they’re allowed to behave in such a manner on university grounds. Yet, even this couldn’t dampen the sunny spirits of the protesting students.

A university apparently wedded to Zionism

The protest was sparked by the university’s invitation to BlackRock Asset Management for an upcoming job fair. For those unaware, the company’s affiliate, Blackrock, is a major investor in defense and aerospace companies, with well-documented ties to Israel. Students have every right to question the inclusion of such a company in the event.

Blackrock, according to the UN, is best known as the largest investor in companies linked to, and complicit in the genocide in gaza. Blackrock and its affiliates are invested heavily in companies such as Lockheed Martin (7%) which create weapons that kill people. As well they hold stakes in companies such as Alphabet (6.6%). Palantir (8.6%), and Amazon (6.6%). Tech companies sell software and capabilities which are used by the IDF to target whoever they decide to call a terrorist today.

The normalisation of their presence at university events, despite their complicity in the ongoing genocide, has sparked anger on campuses across the country for years. These concerns have been reflected in demands made by students at various universities, both during and since the encampment movement.

A crisis of trust

This is not an isolated event. Leeds University has been embroiled in repeated accusations of platforming Zionists on campus.

In 2024 freedom of information requests revealed hundreds of thousands of pounds of investment into businesses directly contributing to apartheid and genocide in occupied Palestine. This happened despite the university’s 2018 declaration that it had divested from the companies enabling the Gaza genocide.

They have also been accused of sheltering a Chaplain who left the university to serve in the Israeli Defence Forces, whose war crimes have been live-streamed for the past two years. Rabbi Zecharia Deutsch was allowed to continue in his role as Chaplain when he returned from Israeli, and even after Jewish students complained about his extremist, Zionist posturing.

It has been a busy week for student activists who also disrupted Chancellor, Rachel Reeves’ visit to campus earlier in the week.

Not only has the university consistently failed to address students concerns properly, they have even gone so far as using the university’s disciplinary processes to repress student dissent on campus. Suffian, a masters student and local campaigner spoke to me about his experiences at the university.

Blackrock — frit!

University security were clearly rattled, calling the police and keeping their distance at the steps of the union. It turns out they weren’t the only ones. Blackrock decided to avoid any negative publicity and cancelled their planned appearance. Direct action works!

I’ve never understood people who think protest and reputational risk aren’t powerful tools.

Universities across the UK are failing to live up to basic expectations held by their student population—the very students whose fees keep the lights on.

Our high streets host banks that profit when children die on the other side of the world. Fast food chains allow their franchisees in Israel to feed IDF soldiers—soldiers found by medics to be intentionally using children as target practice. Amazon vans roll around innocently, all while aiding the targeting of civilians in an illegal occupation, between deliveries. Where does it end?!

Universities have a responsibility to do better and we stand in solidarity with all students standing up for their rights on university campuses—both in Leeds and beyond.

Featured images via Barold

The crisis between Senegal and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) has entered an unprecedented phase of escalation after the Senegalese government demanded an international investigation into suspected corruption within CAF, following the decision to strip its national team of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) title.

Reuters reported the official position of the Senegalese government after the CAF Appeals Committee ruled that the Senegalese team had forfeited the final match against Morocco by briefly leaving the field during stoppage time in protest against refereeing decisions, despite winning the match 1-0 after extra time.

The decision resulted in Senegal being declared the loser by default (3-0) and the title being awarded to the Moroccan national team, a move that sparked widespread controversy and official rejection in Dakar.

In a strongly worded statement, the Senegalese government described the decision as “blatantly illegal” and “unjust,” arguing that the circumstances of the case raise serious questions about the integrity of CAF’s administration and calling for an independent international investigation to uncover the truth.

Meanwhile, CAF has not yet issued any immediate response, while the Senegalese Football Federation has announced its intention to appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, asserting that what happened is “unprecedented and unacceptable.”

With the case now on the international legal track, all eyes are on the outcome of the anticipated confrontation, in a case poised to reignite the broader debate on governance for AFCON

Featured image via the Canary