Australia needed a statement after their defeat in the first Test. They delivered one with ruthless clarity, hammering Bangladesh by an innings inside two days to square the series. A performance built on pace, discipline and a refusal to let the hosts breathe turned the contest into a short, sharp demolition, restoring order after Bangladesh’s historic win in the opener.

Bowlers rip through Bangladesh on day one

Bangladesh’s decision to bat first lasted only a few chaotic hours. Australia’s attack, sharper and more controlled than in the opening Test, hit their lengths immediately. Mitchell Starc set the tone with early swing, Josh Hazlewood locked down the top order with relentless accuracy, and Pat Cummins applied pressure from the other end. The hosts never settled.

Wickets fell in clusters. Edges carried, stumps were rattled, and Bangladesh’s attempts to counter were brief. Marnus Labuschagne’s sharp catch in the cordon removed one of the few batters who looked capable of resisting. By lunch, Bangladesh were already deep in trouble; by mid‑afternoon, they were gone for a total that gave Australia complete control.

The collapse was stark. No partnership built any meaningful resistance, and Australia’s bowlers barely needed to adjust plans. Cummins’ short spells were decisive, Hazlewood’s discipline suffocated scoring, and Starc’s late swing cleaned up the tail. Bangladesh walked off knowing they had handed Australia the initiative.

Australia’s batters pile on decisive lead

With the ball having done its job, Australia’s batters approached their reply with clarity. Usman Khawaja anchored the innings with calm control, leaving well, punishing anything loose and ensuring Bangladesh’s bowlers were forced to work. His innings wasn’t flashy, but it was exactly what the situation demanded.

At the other end, Steven Smith played with typical precision, rotating strike and picking gaps. Their partnership steadied Australia and pushed the lead into commanding territory. Labuschagne added further weight with a busy contribution, keeping the tempo high without taking risks.

Bangladesh’s bowlers searched for movement but found little. The pitch, already worn from the opening day’s collapse, offered uneven bounce but not enough to trouble Australia’s top order. When wickets did fall, they came from moments of individual error rather than sustained pressure.

Australia’s middle order extended the advantage. Travis Head played positively, threading boundaries through the off side, while Alex Carey added important runs to stretch the lead beyond Bangladesh’s reach. By the time Australia declared, the margin was already decisive. Bangladesh faced a mountain.

Second‑innings collapse seals two‑day finish

Bangladesh needed resilience, time at the crease and a willingness to absorb pressure. Instead, Australia’s bowlers produced an even more ruthless display than on day one. Hazlewood struck early, removing the opener with a ball that straightened just enough. Starc followed with a delivery that tailed late and clipped the top of off stump. The tone was set.

Cummins’ spells were short, sharp and hostile. He targeted the stumps, forced batters onto the back foot and created constant uncertainty. Edges flew, lbws were reviewed, and Bangladesh’s innings unravelled quickly. The middle order, already under strain, couldn’t halt the slide. A brief partnership offered hope, but Starc returned to break it with a full ball that swung late.

Australia’s catching was crisp. Labuschagne and Smith were busy in the cordon, and Carey’s work behind the stumps was clean. Every half‑chance was taken, every loose shot punished. Bangladesh’s batters, who had shown composure in the first Test, looked rattled by the relentlessness.

The tail folded swiftly. Hazlewood trapped one lbw with a ball that nipped back, Cummins cleaned up another with a delivery that stayed low, and Starc finished the job with pace too hot to handle. Bangladesh were dismissed well short of making Australia bat again, confirming the innings victory and the two‑day finish.

Series levelled, momentum restored for Australia

Australia’s response to the opening‑Test defeat was emphatic. Their bowlers rediscovered rhythm, their batters applied pressure with control, and their fielding tightened. The innings win inside two days wasn’t just a result; it was a statement of intent.

Bangladesh, buoyed by their historic first‑Test triumph, were brought back to earth. Their batting lacked the composure and patience that had defined their earlier success, and their bowlers couldn’t contain Australia’s top order. The challenge now is to regroup quickly.

For Australia, the victory restores balance and confidence. Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins operated as a unit, Khawaja and Smith provided stability, and the team’s overall discipline returned. The series, once tilting towards Bangladesh, is now level with everything to play for.

Focus shifts to decisive final test

With the series tied, the final Test looms large. Australia will enter with momentum, clarity and renewed belief. Bangladesh must rediscover the resilience that carried them through the opener. Conditions will matter, selection will matter, and temperament will matter even more.

Australia’s challenge is to maintain the intensity shown here. Bangladesh’s challenge is to respond with the same conviction they displayed in the first Test. After two contrasting matches, the finale promises a compelling finish.

Featured image courtesy of Cric Info

By Faz Ali

Source link

On 20 August, hundreds of ACORN members across England and Wales took action to highlight the cost of living crisis. They were taking the fight directly to the companies which profit from unaffordability.

ACORN is a renters union which takes action to protect people from eviction and campaigns against the causes of unaffordable housing.

ACORN action

With protests, picket lines and occupations at nine HQs of water and energy giants, bailiff companies and corporate landlords, they sent a clear message:

We won’t stand for it any more.

In Yorkshire, dozens of ACORN members blocked the entrance to Yorkshire Water. Executives agreed to meet after hearing stories from customers who have suffered due to their policies. Meanwhile, in the North West, it was the turn of United Utilities.

Members took a kayak to Severn Trent Water’s HQ in the Midlands and secured an agreement to:

• Not implement price surges.
• Meet with ACORN within two weeks.
• Give the union input into Severn Trent’s cost of living policies.

In Wales, members occupied the offices of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, which also led to an agreement to further negotiations.

In Bristol, members held a noisy occupation of the lobby at the offices of OVO Energy. They refused to leave until heads had agreed to meet. Brighton members meanwhile went to Octopus Energy.

In the North East, members turned the tables on bailiffs by placing a wheel clamp on a CDER Group van. Meanwhile in Norfolk they secured a meeting to discuss the council’s use of bailiffs after a council-run bailiff firm, ARP, was the subject of a noisy protest.

Usman Akhtar, national spokesperson for ACORN, said:

Working class people across the UK are being battered by the cost of living crisis, working to exhaustion and waking up dreading the landlord raising the rent again, their energy bill rising, water bills spiralling and bailiffs leeching off whatever joy is left.

All while fat cat CEOs gorge themselves on massive bonuses at our expense, we’ve had members being chased for bills that aren’t theirs, members left with £300 water bills for one single month and others left with no running water at all. We’re battered and bruised but not beaten.

Our day of action is about rising up and fighting the cost of living crisis at the front doors of the those causing it and taking back what’s ours.

We’re demanding rent caps, an end to the use of bailiffs for debt collection, no executive bonuses, no price rises above inflation for 5 years, a write-off of household utility debts built up during the cost of living crisis.

Advertisement

Bills are rising but so are we!

Featured image via ACORN

By The Canary

Source link

In April this year, the much-heralded motion to the Green Party conference, which promised to turn it into the first mainstream political party openly committed to anti-Zionism, appeared in the conference order of business. But in the end, to the frustration of very probably an absolute majority of delegates, the motion was not put to conference.

Zionism is Racism

Instead, a series of bureaucratic manoeuvres, from attempts to rule the motion out of order to a protracted filibustering campaign, ensured that the Greens remain a Zionist party in terms of their official policy on Palestine – the two-state solution.

Although a vote on the motion had been expected early in proceedings following a successful push by its backers to fast-track the process, it was repeatedly delayed by several no-confidence motions against the party chair, each of which required a separate debate, the Telegraph reported.

A lengthy fight over the policy itself led to additional delays, after opponents of the measure tried unsuccessfully to rule it as out of order, by arguing that it contradicted the Green Party’s existing policy, which calls for a two-state solution.

But who were the people running this evident campaign to filibuster the motion out of the conference?

Step forward the Jewish Greens.

Jewish Greens

It was formed in 2018 as a “Liberation Group” inside the Green Party at the height of the Labour Party antisemitism witch-hunt. Among the highlights of the programme of speakers and events held by the Jewish Greens in 2024 were:

• New Israel Fund event: “An Evening with Mikhael Manekin in conversation with Alona Ferber”. The New Israel Fund is a Zionist funding organisation dedicated to supporting projects normalising Zionism and undermining resistance to it.
• Yachad event: “In conversation with Ami Ayalon” (with Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian). In 2008, Dutch prosecution authorities failed to arrest Ayalon, a former head of the Zionist intelligence agency Shin Bet, while he was visiting the Netherlands. An application for his arrest was reportedly “submitted to the Dutch authorities by Khalid al-Shami, who alleged that he was a victim of torture from1999-2000, when Ami Ayalon was the director of the Shin Bet.”

Both these events were advertised on the Jewish Greens ‘Events’ page. After this author posted about them on X in June 2024, accompanied by screengrabs (here and here), the two entries mysteriously disappeared from their website, while other events before and after in 2024 remained and are still available to view.

In February 2026 the Jewish Greens produced a long statement calling for a vote against the Zionism is Racism motion. It talked of how the motion might “alienate Jewish members and make it harder to combat racism,” though, obviously, the motion was specifically targeting the racism that is inherent to Zionism.

Who are they?

The key people in the Jewish Greens include the following current office bearers and two co-founders. It’s important to state that none of them have publicly dissented from the collective position paper of the group on the motion before conference, just cited.

Vivien Lichtenstein, co-founder of the Jewish Greens in 2018, Chair of the group 2018-2021 and then re-elected in 2023. She has publicly stated that the Green Party is a welcoming space for Zionists. She has claimed that:

if there’s any racism in our Jewish communities, then it is our responsibility to deal with that.

Naturally, however, she appears not to see the racism that takes the form of Zionism in the community. Approached by the Canary for comment, Lichtenstein said that “I describe myself as both Zionist and anti-Zionist depending on how Zionism is defined.” Pressed to explain that statement, Lichtenstein wrote a second response saying:

I’m unable to spend the time today providing an answer to your request for those definitions, leading me to describe myself as anti-Zionist or Zionist. There were some meetings when I would have described myself as both Zionist and anti-Zionist depending on how Zionism is defined, but not in any public statement to my recollection.

Opposing positions over anti-Zionism

Jo Bird was an officer of Jewish Greens from 2022 until July 2025, latterly she was Treasurer. She only joined the Greens in 2022 after being unjustly expelled from the Labour Party. She was a prominent Corbyn supporter and involved with JVL which in September 2025 formally defined itself as anti-Zionist, and changed its name to Jewish Voice for Liberation.

It is puzzling therefore that she reportedly opposed the motion, saying it:

should not be discussed so that mediation and further consideration could take place and a new unifying motion be put forward in the autumn.

In response to a request for comment from the Canary, Jo Bird said “I’m not a Zionist”.

Sam Alston is the Secretary of the group, re-elected in 2025. He has been a youth worker at Liberal Judaism, a staff member of Yachad, a representative on the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and co-founder of Na’amod, the former two of which are Zionist and the latter of which refuses to take a position on Zionism. His profile on the Jewish Greens webpage used to say (as recently as 28 March 2026) that he was a “council member for the Zionist Federation”, but this has now been removed.

‘Not racism’

Josh Alston, is Policy Officer of Jewish Greens, was previously Chair of the group and is the younger brother of Sam. He is the only key member profiled here who describes himself as a “committed anti-Zionist”. He defines this position as the belief that “Zionism is a form of settler nationalism” and that “the racism, genocide and apartheid characterizing Israel today have their core in Zionism as an ideology”.

This is preparation for his absurd position that:

While I would agree that Zionism is intrinsically racist, it is not a type of racism.

Thus he opposed the anti-Zionism motion. If we take his prevarications as given in good faith, it’s difficult to imagine a more confused position. He concludes that “as a Jewish person”, Zionists “are my friends and family and people that I love.” He would do well to heed the sentiments of the famous 1984 song by the Special AKA entitled “Racist friend”. Be it your cousin or your uncle or your lover…

Andrée Frieze was re-elected as a non-portfolio officer of the group. Frieze is married to a former member of the Zionist occupation forces. Though a convert to Judaism, she has taken naturally to Zionist talking points and tactics.

Other members involved against the anti-Zionism motion

As the Canary has previously reported Frieze was behind what appears to have been a bad faith complaint against Hamza Egal, chair of Global Majority Greens and convenor of the Greens’ racism policy working group. Egal later wrote an open letter denouncing what he said was racism in the Green Party, saying there was a pattern of:

repeated use of accusations of antisemitism — deployed not only against me but against many members of this party who oppose Zionism and its racist ideology and practice.

More recently, on her Substack Frieze denounced the Zionism is racism motion as “antisemitic”. One of the reasons for this, she says, is that “it will make it impossible for any Jewish member of the [Green Party] to express anything resembling support for Israel.”

As if that would be a bad thing!

Elise Benjamin is a co-founder of the Jewish Greens. Benjamin was a key actor in the illegitimate anti-Zionism filibuster operation. She is director of the national committee of UK Friends of Standing Together Greens. This is a Zionist normalisation organisation as has been pointed out by Lubna Speitan, the author of the ‘Zionism is Racism’ motion and even by the BDS movement.

On her X profile Benjamin claims to be an “indigenous Judean”. Given that she is an Ashkenazi Jew, this is an obvious falsehood. She nevertheless plays the victim in the mainstream press, telling the Guardian: “I’ve had experiences where someone has been telling me where my family are from.” Helpfully enough, Benjamin maintains an online family tree on ancestry.co.uk with her partner Craig Simmons – also a key Jewish Greens activist. This shows that their older relatives and ancestors, back eight generations, hailed originally from Poland in the mid Eighteenth Century and then variously from Latvia, Russia, Ukraine and Germany. As is well known, none of these places are in the Levant.

Zionist synagogues in the pipeline to defend Zionism

Some of the core Jewish Greens members are associated with the Kingston Liberal Synagogue. As the name would indicate it was a member of Liberal Judaism until 2025 when it joined with the Movement for Reform Judaism to form the Movement for Progressive Judaism.

All three organisations and all member synagogues are formally signed up to the Zionist movement. Andrée Frieze is a member and her husband Shimon Morad (the “Israeli” former member of the Occupation Forces) is a trustee of the charity that runs the synagogue.

The Alston brothers, Sam and Josh were brought up in this synagogue, and their mother Sara is also a trustee. The brothers are now also connected to liberal (Zionist) synagogues in Leeds and Oxford. Both brothers have been associated as leaders/workers with the Liberal Judaism youth movement LJY-Netzer, which says it aims to “promote a progressive Zionist vision of Israel”.

Weaponising “antisemitism” in the Green Party

Since the conference there has been a concerted effort by the Zionist press and their allies to ‘do a Corbyn’ on Zack Polanski. Polanski, though we might be critical of his positions, has at least been more combative than Corbyn was.

But it appears that something over 30 Green Party members have been (mostly) suspended or expelled for having violated Party rules on antisemitism.

The Daily Mail reported that:

the Greens are investigating more than 30 council candidates for alleged anti-Semitism.

In addition there have been expulsions of ordinary members who were not candidates. Among the comments made which resulted in them being suspended, expelled or dropped as candidates were statements about false flag operations, comparisons of “Israel” to the Nazis, “conspiracy theories” about 9/11, collaboration of Jews/Zionists with the Nazis. One candidate was denounced by the Jewish News for statements “rooted” in “antisemitic tropes” which they hilariously reported as being:

the conspiracy theory that Starmer and other Labour MPs have been ‘bought’ by Labour Friends of Israel, a mainstream cross-party lobbying group.

None of these statements exhibits even prejudice against “Jews as Jews”, far less racism. And of course the veteran anti-Zionism proponent Tony Greenstein was suspended on totally trumped-up charges, as the Canary has reported, which weaponised the lawfare carried out against him by genocidal Zionist groups. Later, in July, he was expelled.

Chaos in the Green Party

How is the Green Party getting it so wrong?

Where did the conduct rules being used to suspend or expel come from?

Well, it appears they were written and guided through party structures by the Jewish Greens, who published them over 17 pages on their own site. They also helpfully published a four-page summary guide effectively to expelling principled anti-Zionists.

At no point in the four pages does it say that anti-Zionism is not synonymous with “antisemitism” or that anti-Zionist views may be protected under the Equality Act, as established in my own case in 2024 and confirmed at appeal recently.

The guidelines were first produced in 2020 in presumed anticipation of just such a moment. The people who put them together, according to Zack Polanski himself, were Vivien Lichtenstein, Elise Benjamin and Josh & Sam Alston, the key figures in the Jewish Greens, of which Polanski was, at that time, the Treasurer.

He promoted the guidance in a piece on the Bright Green website in October 2020. The guidance is a cooked-up Zionist recipe for a witch-hunt, including as it does, both the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and the Jerusalem Declaration. The latter is of course a liberal Zionist panacea attempting to be slightly more reasonable than the IHRA, but still prohibiting totally legitimate criticism of Zionism as racism, as has been shown by Phil Bevin.

We’ve seen it all before around anti-Zionism

The Jewish Greens have also been offering antisemitism awareness training to the party. In a process reminiscent of the Jewish Labour Movement campaign of harassment and intimidation in the Corbyn-led Labour Party, they say they have so far trained a number of branches, as well as the Executive of the party and its youth section. It is no wonder, therefore, that these apparently mysterious expulsions are happening.

The Canary approached the following members of the Jewish Greens for comment via email, or by Facebook Messenger or by message on X: Vivien Lichtenstein, Jo Bird, Sam Alston, Josh Alston, Andrée Frieze and Elise Benjamin. Replies were received from Vivien Lichtenstein and Jo Bird, which are reflected in the article above.

Featured image via the Canary

By David Miller

Source link

WARNING: DISTRESSING CONTENT

As Skwawkbox reported yesterday, 24 August 2026, the Israeli occupation has issued a kill order for its military to slaughter children if they dare to fly kites in Gaza. The pastime has been one of the few outlets for children to express being children in the midst of Israel’s genocide. It hasn’t taken long for the murderous colony to murder its first child for the ‘crime’.

Israel kills its first kite-flying child

Within hours of the kill order, Israel’s occupation forces slaughtered four-year-old Hassan Al-Qatraoui and other members of his family, bombing their home and claiming he had flown a kite:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ناهض حجاج (@nahed_hajjaj99)

Invader vehicles also murdered at least one child in an attack on refugee tents in Khan Younis. 10-year-old Amal Nashat Abu Khater was eating with her family in their tent when she was hit in the back by IOF bullets fired at the tents.

The silence of the UK and other collaborator governments to Israel’s ongoing mass murder of children and families is unforgivable.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

It’s been reported that Reform UK councillor Jason Mark Townend was arrested following a pub brawl involving several men and women. The police have subsequently released Townend without charge, although he remains on police bail.

Reform UK confirms councillor arrested after pub incidenthttps://t.co/DlwXgqdSr9

— Reform UK Exposed (@reformexposed) August 24, 2026

Incident that led to Reform councillor arrest

Townend is a councillor in the Wibsey and Odsal ward of Bradford Council. Townend is one of three Reform councillors in the ward, with his party being the largest in Bradford Council, which is currently under no overall control.

The party’s Bradford leader Stephen Place has previously attracted criticism for social media posts such as the following:

As we reported at the time:

The above post highlights three posts Place shared.

The first suggests ‘London has Fallen’ as a result of embracing Islam; the second depicts Angela Rayner as a sex worker who charges “£1 for 30 minutes”; the third we’ve blurred because it’s an AI creep shot of what appears to be teenage girls.

Brawl

Regarding Townend, a statement from West Yorkshire Police confirmed the following details:

Police were called to a pub on Manchester Road, Bradford at about 10.30pm on Saturday 22 August to a report of ongoing fighting involving several men and women.

Officers attended the scene at which a woman in her 40s had sustained facial injuries.

Following enquiries, a man, aged 57, was arrested on suspicion of affray and a woman, aged 26, was arrested on suspicion of section 18 assault.

Both have been released on police bail pending continuing investigations.

A Reform UK Bradford spokesperson has said:

We are aware that Councillor Townend was arrested on Saturday night in Wibsey.

He was subsequently released without charges.

As the police made clear, however, investigations are ongoing, and Townend is on police bail.

Featured image via BBC

By Willem Moore

Source link

Reform UK has published its new policy for affordable housing in the UK – and it’s somehow even more racist than we’ve come to expect. It victimises homeless people, disabled people and settled migrants, all in the name of elevating a reactionary vision of young, working, British families popping out British babies.

Invoking social housing’s origins with ministers David Lloyd George and Nye Bevan in the policy document’s foreword, deputy Reform leader Richard Tice claimed that the scheme was conceived:

not as a subsidy for immigrants or those who choose not to work. Quite the opposite. It gave working Britain access to the secure housing needed to get on, close to their workplace, with space to raise a family. Allocation wasn’t based solely on need at a single point in time, but on suitability. Being given a council house was seen as a privilege, creating a generation of hard-working, houseproud Brits.

God, they really like getting a war reference in there to justify saying something abhorrent, don’t they?

Tice is also conveniently skipping over the fact that in 1950, immediately after Bevan’s reforms, the employment rate was around 70.4%. It peaked again in ’56, at 74.8%… which is still lower than today’s 75%. People work – they just can’t afford houses. And, of course, those who can’t work still need somewhere to live (but we’ll get to that).

‘Being in work will be a requirement’ says Reform

The rest of Reform’s scheme isn’t exactly an improvement on Tice’s foreword. The policy document goes on to state that:

Reform UK will back British workers. Being in work will be a requirement to access new social housing built under this scheme. Social housing should not be a reward for claiming welfare.

You may be forgiven for thinking ‘even Reform must make an exception for disabled people – surely those who can’t work need social housing more than anyone?’ Well, you’d be wrong, wouldn’t you.

The document doesn’t mention disability a single time. It includes no carve-outs for people who can’t work. Instead, it plans to prioritise under-35s, “veterans, those in work and married couples” – which, as the Canary wrote yesterday, is pure conformist bullshit.

The current system (ostensibly) prioritises people who need social housing by dint of homelessness, disability, or living in a dangerous situation. That’s the system Reform want to do away with.

Please, oh please blame the foreigners

The document goes on to state that:

Reform UK will end access to social housing for foreign nationals, evicting them after a short grace period.

A Reform UK government will deliver an additional 50,000 new affordable homes per year.

These commitments will make available around 1 million homes for British families.

First and foremost, the ‘foreigners are taking your homes’ rhetoric is on full display here. Along with being nakedly racist and xenophobic, it’s also a bunch of bloody rubbish.

Just 11.5% of main householders in social housing are non-UK or non-Irish nationals. Migrants on work / student visas, illegal migrants and asylum seekers aren’t even eligible to apply.

Reform itself admits that the Housing Act 1996 already prevents foreign nationals from accessing social housing. The exceptions are for people with EU Settled Status or Indefinite Leave to Remain, i.e. people who have already been welcomed to stay in the UK indefinitely. Reform wants to renege on that deal.

As such, Labour accused Reform of going after:

long-term UK residents that have contributed to our country but are not British citizens, including NHS staff.

Return of the magic money tree from Reform

So, next question – how does Reform plan to fund this ridiculous scheme? Well, the policy doc has that (half-) covered too:

This will require £10 billion a year of investment, which will be fiscally neutral and require no new taxes or government borrowing.

It will be funded through a combination of the British Sovereign Wealth Fund, housing associations in partnership with institutional capital and a renewed Right to Buy Scheme.

It later adds that “reforming the planning system” and scrapping Net Zero will contribute to that £10bn, which is:

based on £200 per square foot and an average unit of 1,000 square feet. That figure will be lower given the overregulation of the sector (making this a conservative estimate).

So, to clarify, Reform is planning to build more houses by cutting corners and lowering the standards it needs to meet. We hope all those married, under-35, working veterans the party loves so much enjoy their crumbling, damp-ridden death traps.

Also, if you’ve never heard of a ‘British Sovereign Wealth Fund’, don’t worry – it’s because it doesn’t exist. Rather, it’s the name Reform gives to its plan to consolidate around 100 council pension schemes into a single £500bn pot.

A Reform government would then require this pot to direct 25% of its investments to UK companies and products. How exactly it plans to turn a profit from social housing is anyone’s guess. Wave goodbye to your council pensions if Reform get in, folks.

‘Changing the order of the queue’

As ever, there’s far more nonsense to wade through in Reform’s plan, but we’d be here all day at that rate. Fortunately, homelessness charity Shelter cut straight to the heart of the matter. It stated that the way to solve social housing was to build more houses, but Reform is focused on “changing the order of the queue”.

The charity’s chief executive, Sarah Elliott, fleshed out that criticism. She said Reform’s policy put “nationality and employment ahead of housing need”. This, in turn, would leave:

even more families trapped in awful temporary accommodation for years on end. Not to mention putting those escaping domestic abuse and violence at serious risk of harm.

Elliott added that the scheme would increase levels of homelessness in the UK, and was clearly designed to “stoke division”.

We at the Canary couldn’t have put it better ourselves. This policy, if you would call it that, is nothing more that barely-disguised racist, regressive fantasy – shoddy British houses for married British couples making little British babies, and sod the settled migrants, disabled people and homeless people.

As ever, it’s exactly what you’d expect from far-right Reform UK.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

Author – and former UK ambassador – Craig Murray put forward a plan in late July 2026 to make Scotland independent of its blighted southern neighbour. Without the Scottish independence referendum that London’s controlling government continues to refuse it. And it seems many Scots like the plan – and so, it seems, does much of the international community.

Simply bold over Scottish independence

Murray’s plan is straightforward and provocative:

1) Set a Date for Independence

The First Minister should write to the Prime Minister informing him that a referendum is preferred, but if there is no prior referendum then he will invite the Scottish Parliament to declare Independence on a specified date (I suggest 14 September 2029).

State that an Independent Scotland will then hold a confirmatory plebiscite in February 2030.

Advertisement

2) Canvass the International Community and Tee Up a UN General Assembly Vote

Independence is not primarily a matter of domestic law. It is existence as a state recognised by other international states. What actually makes you a state is not any domestic act, but recognition by other states, expressed formally through recognition by the UN General Assembly and obtaining a seat at the United Nations.

As part of a team from Liberation Scotland and Salvo, I have been lobbying diplomatic missions of the UN to this end for 18 months now. We have found enormous support for Scottish Independence and literally no outright hostility. What we have repeatedly met is astonishment that the Scottish government and/or the governing party the SNP, has made no effort to carry the case to the international community.

Murray then proposes that Holyrood write to the UK PM simply informing them that Scotland will declare its independence in September 2029 and seek recognition as such from the UN General Assembly. This move will affirming the Scottish statehood and sovereignty that gives it the right to do so, with the democratic mandate of Scotland’s elected government. As Murray states:

A supposed voluntary union can by definition be dissolved. The self-determination of peoples is an inalienable Charter right.

Prepared to stand for Scotland

Scots cannot assume the English regime will simply acknowledge what’s right. They will have to be prepared to secure their borders and resist attempts to break Scottish independence. As Murray points out:

This is where Catalonia failed. Its referendum was disrupted by brutality to which it had no answer. Scots must be prepared to stand for Scotland.

This stand will be more than physical resistance. It will require the setting up, or repurposing for independence, of a central bank and other key institutions. But it will also require the “peaceful and friendly” blockading of military and other installations that might try to bring down the re-established state.

Murray points out that this will put Andy Burnham under sudden pressure to agree independence that he clearly has no interest in dealing with if the pressure is not brought to bear. And he points out that the UK government doesn’t have a leg to stand on, given its own declarations about other nations’ independence:

These quotes are from the British government’s intervention before the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo hearings:

“In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor State’s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.”

Advertisement

And the still stronger formulation:

“Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of the predecessor State.”

Popular support

It seems many Scots agree. A recent poll found that almost half of Scots back Scotland taking back its independence – without a referendum and whether Westminster likes it or not:

With half or more of residents backing Scottish independence generally, the Westminster government is not going to grant another referendum – just as it continues to refuse its obligations under the Good Friday Agreement to hold a referendum on Irish reunification as soon as there is a realistic prospect of a ‘yes’ vote, which there already is.

That means taking back independence is the only realistic route for the millions of Scots who see Westminster become ever more a failed state collaborating in genocide and illegal war – and waging war on its own citizens’ rights and speech to protect the criminals.

Read Murray’s full article here.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

FILE – Dolly Parton poses at the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy Ceremony in New York, on Oct. 13, 2022. (AP Photo/Andres Kudacki, File)

Source link

The president of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), Slovenian Aleksander Čeferin, issued a direct warning to the President of the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), the Swiss Gianni Infantino, stating that the latter may face a challenger in the FIFA presidential election scheduled for March 2027, amid mounting pressure on him due to his disputes with a number of continental federations.

In excerpts from an interview with the British podcast The Rest Is Politics: Leading, Čeferin confirmed that he would not be that rival, but clearly hinted that Infantino’s continued participation in the race might not be guaranteed without the emergence of a candidate capable of challenging him.

Infantino faces two options

Čeferin said that Infantino faces two options: the first is to realise that he no longer enjoys sufficient support, not only at the political level from the federations with voting rights, but also within the football community and amongst fans, players and coaches.

The second option, according to the UEFA president, is for Infantino to stand in the elections next March; however, he predicted that in this scenario a rival candidate would emerge, adding that he does not yet know the identity of this candidate.

Čeferin’s comments come at a time when Infantino is facing mounting pressure over the row concerning his commercial plan to sell shares in World Cup rights to private-sector investors – a plan that has been temporarily shelved.

A growing opposition front

The dispute has turned into an institutional confrontation after UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and CONCACAF accused Infantino of “deception”, whilst UEFA has escalated its stance by threatening to boycott certain FIFA competitions.

Infantino, who has been FIFA president since 2016, had until recently appeared to be on a clear path to winning a new term unopposed, but mounting opposition to the plan to sell stakes in World Cup rights has brought the election race back into the spotlight.

FIFA has set 18 November 2026 as the deadline for submitting candidacies for the presidency of the international federation, ahead of the elections scheduled for March 2027 in Morocco.

Čeferin closes the door on a challenge

Although his name has been put forward as a potential challenger to Infantino, Čeferin, aged 58, has confirmed that he does not intend to enter the race, insisting on continuing to lead UEFA.

He said he had two reasons for not standing: firstly, he enjoys working at UEFA and wishes to continue doing so; and secondly, his lack of interest in the post gives him, in his view, greater credibility when criticising FIFA’s direction.

Čeferin thus leaves the door open to an electoral scenario that could be the most exciting since Infantino became FIFA president, as the emergence of a strong rival would transform the upcoming elections from a virtually foregone conclusion into a genuine battle for the leadership of world football.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Portuguese star Cristiano Ronaldo continues to write a new chapter in his exceptional career, having come closer than ever before to reaching the 1,000-goal mark in his professional career – a feat that would be the first of its kind in modern football.

Ronaldo, aged 41, has taken his tally to 977 goals in 1,333 matches, having scored in Al-Nassr’s 4–0 victory over Al-Riyadh in the second round of the Saudi Professional League, leaving him just 23 goals away from joining the 1,000-goal club.

23 goals and a mission that seems achievable

Despite his advancing age, Ronaldo continues to maintain scoring rates that keep him in contention for a feat that seems out of reach for most players. So far in 2026, the Portugal captain has scored 20 goals in 30 matches, including 17 for Al-Nassr and three for his national team.

Ronaldo needs to maintain a rate of nearly one goal per match in the coming period to reach this historic milestone before the end of the year. Calculations suggest he has at least 29 official matches available until December, which gives him ample opportunity to realise this millennium dream, provided he maintains his scoring rate and avoids injury.

The task seems all the more achievable given his figures from last year, when he scored 41 goals in 46 matches at an average of around 0.89 goals per match – a rate close to what is required of him in the coming period.

Al-Nassr and Portugal: the road to 1,000

Al-Nassr bears the brunt of Ronaldo’s hopes of reaching this historic milestone, as numerous matches await him in the Saudi Pro League, alongside his participation in the AFC Champions League and the King’s Cup.

As Al-Nassr continue to compete in continental competitions, Ronaldo will have more matches and minutes on the pitch to boost his tally, particularly as he is relied upon as one of the team’s key attacking players.

As for the Portuguese national team, Ronaldo remains a key part of the manager’s plans, with the team continuing to rely on him as their main captain. Upcoming international fixtures offer him a further opportunity to edge closer to the 1,000-goal mark, given his clear desire to continue playing at the highest possible level.

A race against time towards an immortal milestone for Ronaldo

The irony is that Ronaldo is not merely chasing a personal milestone, but is striving for an achievement that could become one of the most difficult milestones in the history of football. Reaching 1,000 official goals requires a long career and exceptional consistency, which makes Ronaldo’s reaching this milestone a historic event that transcends the boundaries of clubs and national teams.

Between his current tally of 977 goals and the anticipated 1,000, the gap seems short in mathematical terms, but it represents a major challenge for a 41-year-old player. Nevertheless, Ronaldo has repeatedly proven that he is capable of defying the effects of age; so the question now is not whether he will reach 1,000, but when he will celebrate his 1,000th goal?

If “El Don” maintains his current scoring rate, the coming weeks could see him rapidly closing in on a figure that would crown an exceptional career spanning more than two decades, cementing his place among the most influential goal scorers in the history of the game.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link