Senior criminal law barrister Dominic D’Souza acted for one of the Ukrainians accused — and acquitted this week — of setting fire to properties belonging to Keir Starmer. The defendants were allegedly ‘rent boys’ — a factor largely ignored by UK ‘mainstream’ media. And D’Souza says that he was astonished — his word was ‘pickled’ — by how much of what went on was ignored or even buried by prosecution and judge in the case.

Two men were convicted in the case. D’Souza’s client Petro Pochynok was acquitted. But when D’Souza read journalist Crispin Flintoff’s X post about the BBC’s unmerited rush to broadcast a programme claiming Russia was behind the attack, he quickly responded that his head was still “pickled” over how much was kept hidden:

I was leading defence counsel for Pochynok who was acquitted. Having come across your vid I remember seeing you in the public gallery every day! Even as the defence barrister in the trial itself, I still find my head pickled over what real underlying truths were never expposed

— Dominic D’Souza (@dsouzabarrister) June 16, 2026

D’Souza was far from the only one to notice. Former UK ambassador Craig Murray pointed out that the alleged figure behind the attack spoke Ukrainian, but that the media very suspiciously ignored this to focus on him also knowing how to speak Russian:

The BBC report that the man who organised the arson of Starmer related property was “Russian speaking”.
They fail to report the evidence was he also spoke Ukrainian.
Almost every Ukrainian can speak Russian.
Very few Russians can speak Ukrainian.

— Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) June 16, 2026

Starmer — “Wholly irrelevant”?

Grayzone journalists Kit Klarenberg and Max Blumenthal noted that the trial judge had forbidden information on the shadowy, Ukrainian-speaking instigator of the attacks from being entered into evidence:

As expected, the truth behind the Ukrainian rent boy attacks will be withheld from the British public https://t.co/pepep43coc

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) June 16, 2026

And Russian is almost universally spoken in Ukraine, a former part of the Soviet Union, while the converse is not true:

The ‘Russia’ link is extremely tenuous

EL spoke Russian and Ukrainian

Ukrainian is not a language widely spoken in Russia,

whereas almost every Ukrainian can speak Russian

— Donahue Rogers (@DonahueRogers) June 16, 2026

Advertisement

In the run-up to the trial, Skwawkbox asked why ‘mainstream’ media — with no court restrictions on reporting — were not asking questions about why the attacks were committed. The defendants were not charged under terror laws as would have been expected. That leaves open the question of a personal dimension to the motives for the arson, or some form of organised crime, something with which the nazi-riddled Ukrainian regime is hardly unfamiliar.

Flintoff is right. The BBC’s haste to lay the blame at Russia’s door — based on the most tenuous of connections — raised more questions than it is clearly meant to put to bed.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

One person was killed and two injured in the latest ‘narco’ boat strike in the eastern Pacific on 17 June. While all eyes are on US-Iran peace talks, US president Donald Trump’s administration is still terrorising Latin America.

The US has killed over 200 people in the Caribbean and Pacific under the guise of stopping ‘narco-terrorist’ boats. The US military’s southern command posted on X:

On June 16, at the direction of #SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known… pic.twitter.com/UGBRt9Mbdm

— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) June 17, 2026

Advertisement

Trump’s shadow war has been raging throughout 2026. The most aggressive phase was the kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro on 3 January. Maduro is still being held in New York awaiting trial.

Trump’s strategy for an American empire

French paper Le Monde pointed to Trump’s ambitions for a subservient Latin America as a matter of US policy:

We want a hemisphere whose governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels and other transnational criminal organizations (…) we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations.

The new drug war, like the old one, is fundamentally a neocolonial project. As US-based Latin America Studies professor Michelle D. Paranzino pointed out on 11 June:

The history of that war on drugs, however, especially during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, shows that the narco-terrorism label has always been politicized.

Adding:

Then, as now, this collaboration appears to be aimed at the leftist and communist governments in the Western Hemisphere.

In many cases, the drug framing is an explicit rationale for action.

The US has been remarkably aggressive

Bolivia is the latest country to sign up to US ‘anti-drug’ plans. The BBC reported on 17 June:

The foreign ministry said that under the agreement, the US would provide up to $20m (£15m) to train and equip Bolivian forces as part of a joint fight against drug smuggling.

Bolivia recently enlisted Trump’s centrepiece colonialist alliance:

Under a new centrist president, Rodrigo Paz, Bolivia has joined the Shield of the Americas, the US-led security initiative in the Western Hemisphere.

NPR interviewed left-wing historian of the Americas Greg Grandin on Trump’s remaking of the hemisphere. Grandin warned the new US strategy was “remarkable in its aggression”:

It’s remarkable in the sense that it feels no need to legitimate itself in terms of any kind of moral or normative justification. In Latin America and the Western Hemisphere, you have quite a remarkable, cohesive and, I would say, efficient application of all of the different applications of hard power – of U.S. hard power – to Latin America under the rubric of the war on drugs.

Adding:

I would say that, maybe with the exception of Uruguay, Washington is meddling in Latin American politics to different degrees of intensity in almost every Latin American nation.

Trump seemed poised to push harder against Latin American resistance before he blundered into a war with Iran in February. He lost that war. But with global attention on new peace talks, it is easy to forget that the dirty war in the western hemisphere is still underway.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

The Makerfield by-election has got people around the country talking about Andy Burnham again. And a new poll has shown that, with increasing scrutiny, he’s become a lot less popular. We reckon that’s because he represents the same kind of fence-sitting, corporate politics that gave the UK Keir Starmer.

Unsurprising popularity dive

Voters tend to view most politicians unfavourably, overall. But Andy Burnham was a rare case before the by-election campaign. Because there were actually more people who viewed him favourably. That has quickly changed in recent weeks, though, with YouGov reporting that his:

favourability has declined markedly over the past two months

Even 2024 Labour voters see him more negatively, with an extra 8% feeling this way. But in Makerfield specifically, he’s still more popular than his party is. And that could potentially allow him to win the by-election.

YouGov quotes one voter in the North West as saying:

Andy Burnham typifies modern politicians who put style and personality over belief in what they stand for.

Burnham’s history of corporate funding and U-turns backs that up. And it’s also the story we’ve seen in the Makerfield by-election campaign. Because Burnham has:

• Failed to meet the Green promise to back public ownership of utilities, making some weak half-promises instead.
• Refused to speak out clearly against Israel’s genocide, unlike his Green opponent.
• Made some vague noises about electoral reform but said that any change would first need to “be in a manifesto and endorsed at a general election” (which Labour is unlikely to win outright ever again).
• Pledged to cut welfare and increase defence spending.
• Suggested he will look for private funds to help finish off the highly controversial HS2 rail project.
• Claimed to want “less factionalism” while refusing to entertain the idea of readmitting Jeremy Corbyn into the Labour Party.

Burnham may still win in Makerfield, but there would be little cause for celebration

Makerfield never seemed like prime Green territory. And it seems unlikely that the Green Party candidate will be a real challenger in the election. But voices inside and outside the party calling for unity behind Burnham as an anti-Reform candidate seem to have the dangerously false impression that he’s an antidote to Reform advances.

Challenging Burnham from the left in this by-election is primarily because he has consistently failed to make firm promises. The Greens may possibly have stepped aside if he had clearly committed to electoral reform before the next election, but he didn’t — even though party members back it. As Green leader Zack Polanski said:

Anyone committed to proper democratic renewal in this country must commit to bringing in fair and genuine proportional representation at the earliest possible opportunity… We also need to get big money out of politics, stop disinformation, and scrap the archaic and undemocratic House of Lords. We’ve heard lots of promises and warm words from many Labour figures – but when it comes to it, we see inaction, U-turns and half-measures.

Reform, meanwhile, may have been awful enough by itself to tank its chances of winning. Suggesting it would back notorious child abuser Jimmy Savile, being generally misogynistic, and getting tetchy with others on the far right could all contribute to Reform losing.

Because Andy Burnham has promised little apart from ‘more of the same’, though, a victory for him wouldn’t be cause for celebration. And that’s probably why the increase in scrutiny has reduced his popularity in recent weeks.

Keir Starmer’s government has set a low bar, so Burnham may stretch slightly over that if he becomes Labour leader. But he alone is too much of a corporate lackey to bring any meaningful change to our political system. For that, only consistent organising and pressure from ordinary people will really make a difference.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

Recent disturbing revelations connected to BBC favourite Ashley Cain prove that the UK and its institutions have a serious misogyny problem.

Moreover, the volume of evidence showing extremely bigoted, abusive rhetoric to diminish, demean and attack women shows how little sexualised abuse seems to matter to the state broadcaster.

When Cain’s rhetoric glorifies violence against women, it ceases to be mere opinion and becomes part of a culture that puts women and girls at risk. The damage is real, and so are the consequences.

Thus, the BBC has serious questions to answer. They did not merely tolerate this rhetoric — they helped amplify it. In doing so, they lent credibility to attitudes that women and girls across the country are already forced to confront every day.

Like typical offenders trying to hide the evidence of their abuse, Cain appears to have deleted his X account over the last week.

How the hell does Ashley Cain have a job at the BBC? I have never read such a timeline of concentrated and appalling misogyny https://t.co/pa63Dhf2mE

— Colleen Murrell (@ivorytowerjourn) June 17, 2026

Cain made ‘jokes’ about hitting women — then hired by the BBC

According to the Guardian, as now his X account is no longer there to refer to, Cain has had no qualms in keeping a long track record of abuse visible to the wider public, with disgusting sexist and abusive comments remaining from across the last decade.

As the exclusive report makes clear, this history was hardly buried. A basic search appears to have been enough to uncover it. Yet the BBC not only platformed him but reportedly held him up as an example of “what BBC Three was about”. That raises serious questions about the broadcaster’s judgement and its ability to decide who they deem as a positive role model to young men.

There are many disgusting things quoted by the Guardian, such as making jokes about hitting women whilst watching Jessica Hayes on Love Island in 2015 saying he “would have to choke slam” her “real quick”.

He didn’t stop there, however, with a later post shamefully saying he wanted to:

dick fuck her and her big mouth, spit in her face and then fuck her off.

The UK is afraid of Muslims? This guy is unhinged yet the BBC has lauded Ashley Cain for his appeal to young male audiences… All part of the same problem.https://t.co/I0u9GMStRa pic.twitter.com/6WIzWuQhMD

— Sidney Cotton (@Steph36Seaton) June 17, 2026

Disrespectful, derogatory rhetoric towards women

Prior to this, back in 2011, he also attempted to blur the lines of consent, arguably adding momentum to a growing rape culture amongst Western men. Apparently, Cain finds the idea of extreme sex acts against women — who he called a “bitch” — funny as if it’s a bit of lighthearted humour.

“No harm no foul” is likely the defence of those who might wish to shut this down, but as many women and girls know, this misogyny spreads especially when modelled to younger boys. As far too many will relate to, this can have deeply traumatic results for the UK’s female population.

He has also made comments which highlight exactly why women are scared of the threat posed by Farage and Reform UK in regard to reproductive rights as he posted:

eating bad food at weekends is like when a girl says, ‘Don’t cum in me’, but you do it anyway, then think ‘shit’.

Another post from Cain highlights the toxic male culture surrounding sex:

A girl bangs 100 guys = Slag

A guy bangs 100 girls = Ledge.

Banning social media whilst platforming dangerous influencers

Starmer announced this week that the Labour government will be imposing a ban on young people across popular social media platforms, stating it was necessary for their safety.

Yes, they’re a cesspit of misogynistic rubbish, and the damage they cause to young people is real. But that’s exactly why people should be trying to fix the problem — not acting as though abuse, harassment and sexism are somehow inevitable.

The answer isn’t to throw our hands up and say, “that’s just the internet”. The answer is to tackle the danger, hold platforms to account and stop treating toxic behaviour as normal.

A recent report published by children’s charity Barnardo’s underscored this very real issue facing the younger generations — who will be the adult abusers or victims of tomorrow. Boys are increasingly pressured to join in with sexist “banter”, while girls are forced to put up with degrading abuse at school, online, at work and in public. Anyone paying attention can see the problem is getting worse, not better.

That’s why it is so infuriating to watch the government sit on its hands. Instead of cracking down on abuse and forcing social media companies to clean up their platforms, ministers have chosen inaction. The result? Misogynists, predators and creeps continue to get free rein online, while women and girls are left to deal with the consequences.

Instead, the government chooses to restrict powerless, vulnerable and impressionable children.

"A source at the BBC said the corporation had been unaware of Cain’s social media posts".
Due diligence? What's that? https://t.co/PlHdundaos

— Briefcase Michael (@BriefcaseMike) June 17, 2026

Do those with influence even care about sexual abuse and misogyny?

This Guardian revelation is disturbing enough on its own. What makes it worse is that the BBC either didn’t bother doing proper due diligence or did and simply shrugged at his rhetoric. Either way, it exposes how normalised misogyny has become and how deeply its harmful attitudes remain woven into British society.

When violence against women and girls is rising exponentially year on year, it is getting harder and harder not to see a level of complicity for the government and the BBC in the endured trauma of young girls and women who will have undoubtedly suffered the consequences of influencers encouraging abusive attitudes and behaviours.

The social media ban will not protect children — it will simply push their use underground and increase the likelihood that they will suffer abuse in silence. After all, they’re told they are not allowed on highly addictive platforms so they will fear potential reprisal from their parents or adults if they speak up.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the ban is the chilling effect it could have on vulnerable children. If a child experiences abuse on a platform they are technically banned from using, they may think twice before telling a parent, teacher or guardian.

The fear of being blamed, punished or hit with an “I told you so” could push many to suffer in silence. That doesn’t protect children — it risks making abuse harder to spot, harder to report and easier for predators to hide.

#UzairQadeer #MattBrittin @BBC I'm really curious to know what your hiring criteria is for on screen talent? Presumably misogyny, obscenity, and the promotion of violence and sexual assault against women are high on the list? https://t.co/Tkple11aWT

— Sue Traynor (@TraynorSue) June 17, 2026

BBC — Will we ever protect women and girls from abusive men?

On the other hand, these platforms are crucial for a sense of connection and understanding for many young people. Society is overwhelming, isolating, and there are few opportunities for young people to talk to others and have a sense of community.

Even if that community is online, it has value for young people, as it does for older generations.

But we have a serious problem in the UK with sinister, harmful misogynistic attitudes amongst Western men — and now we know the government and the BBC have little interest in tackling that issue head on.

No, they platform them for their ‘success’ and they do whatever they can to appease abusive men rather than hold them accountable and make the behaviour expensive.

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

On 15 June, the government announced a social media ban for under-16s. Since then, many groups and experts have spoken out, including Save the Children:

This announcement reflects legitimate concerns about children's safety online, but a ban of this scale would change how children access and experience the digital world. The UK Government must ensure that any decisions are informed by children themselves and by independent… https://t.co/HbwviVkGvt pic.twitter.com/m655lWUo2y

— Save the Children UK (@savechildrenuk) June 15, 2026

Save the Children

The above response reads:

This announcement reflects legitimate concerns about children’s safety online, but a ban of this scale would change how children access and experience the digital world. The UK Government must ensure that any decisions are informed by children themselves and by independent experts.

We are concerned that a blanket ban may look protective on paper, but instead pushes children into less regulated spaces, where they are less likely to seek help when something goes wrong. Children growing up in poverty are likely to be among those most affected.

If young people use sites like Facebook or TikTok, there are things we can do to push these companies to better regulate. After all, these are businesses, and if they want access to the UK market, they need to play by our rules. If young people instead start congregating on dodgy message boards, there is pretty much nothing we can do besides playing whack-a-mole and banning them as they pop up.

Some of these sites host far, far worse than anything you’ll see on Instagram, by the way, and we can’t regulate them via Ofcom, because they’re not hosted here:

We've fined 4chan £450,000 for not having age checks in place to prevent children seeing porn on its site.

The Online Safety Act is concerned with protecting people in the UK. It doesn't require platforms to restrict what people in other countries see.

https://t.co/m2QUapVHjv pic.twitter.com/9rba57bHiq

— Ofcom (@Ofcom) March 19, 2026

Oh, and let’s not forget we could also create a national social media option which isn’t operating a profit-at-any-cost model. As whistleblower Frances Haugen revealed at a US Senate hearing:

I’m here today because I believe Facebook’s products harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy. The company’s leadership knows how to make Facebook and Instagram safer, but won’t make the necessary changes because they have put their astronomical profits before people.

Back to Save the Children, they finished:

If ministers want to make the online world safer, the answer is not simply keeping children off platforms. The focus must be on providing better support for parents by making platforms safer by design, tackling addictive and high-risk features such as stranger contact, live streaming, nudification tools and unsafe AI systems, so that children are not exposed to harm online.

Tech company failures

The Canary’s Maddison Wheeldon also reported on this topic, writing:

Don’t get me wrong: stronger restrictions on social media use by young people have become increasingly necessary given how toxic, abusive, and harmful many platforms have proven to be. But the repeated failure of tech companies to address these problems meaningfully means the dangers will not simply disappear because a ban is introduced.

All these dangers will still be there waiting for young people when they come of age. And it’s not like 18-year-olds aren’t vulnerable to abuse and harm. So really, all we’re doing is kicking the problem down the road.

Wheeldon also wrote:

Harmful content, disinformation, and online radicalisation will continue to exist, and young people will often find ways around restrictions. It is important to note, this policy has not been successful in Australia – a whopping 70% of parents in Australia have reported that their children are still on banned platforms – which hardly suggests this will have any impact on children’s safety.

In other words, the plan won’t address the underlying issue and it won’t even keep children out of harm’s way. So ‘save the children’ it will not.

Ulterior motives

The purpose of the ban seems to be twofold:

• Giving the impression that something is being done without inconveniencing the social media companies which are responsible for the problem.
• Introducing Digital ID by stealth.

In response, we all need to demand that the government grows a spine and regulates social media companies now.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Jeremy Corbyn has slammed Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s new National Security (State Threats) Bill, branding it an “alarming expansion of state power” that poses a “grave risk” to civil liberties.

The Bill is being fast-tracked through all three readings in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

The Bill would amend the National Security Act 2023 to introduce a power for the Home Secretary to designate bodies involved in “foreign power threat activity” by regulation, if they believe it is necessary for the safety or interests of the UK.

The National Security (State Threats) Bill is an alarming expansion of state power, and an escalation of the government’s chilling assault on the right to protest. pic.twitter.com/3izNLrvTL5

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) June 17, 2026

Advertisement

Mahmood’s new bill is already at second reading in the House of Commons as of Wednesday afternoon.

Mahmood insisted there is a “need for speed” following recent events and “the threats the country faces”.

According to the policy paper on the bill:

Jonathan Hall KC’s report, published in May 2025, highlighted the limitations of the terrorism proscription regime in applying to state bodies and how the National Security Act 2023, as drafted, is less effective at disrupting proxies than foreign intelligence services.

This culminated in Jonathan Hall KC’s recommendation for the Government to introduce a ‘State Threats Proscription-like Power’, equivalent to terrorism proscription, which this power reflects.

Advertisement

Hall, as the Canary has previously reported, is the government’s terrorism tsar and has links to Israel. His father-in-law, Lord Dyson, is a patron of UK Lawyers for Israel.

Mahmood — Groups raise alarm

The backlash is not confined to Corbyn.

The International Development Committee, chaired by Labour MP Sarah Champion, has formally written to Mahmood expressing “serious concerns” that the Bill could have catastrophic unintended consequences for UK-funded humanitarian aid.

Grees4Palestine also posted on X, urging Green MPs, who have not spoken out against it, to do so.

Every MP, at every level should be opposing this authoritarian power grab!@EllieChowns @AdrianRamsay @carla_denyer @sianberry https://t.co/hFs3I4eKWr

— Greens4Palestine (@Greens4P) June 17, 2026

Ashok Kumar, Green Party member and  lecturer, said:

As the Bill hurtles towards its final Commons vote tonight — and likely enactment — it will mark a major authoritarian shift in British law.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

A prominent Michigan pollster is accusing state Sen. Mallory McMorrow’s Senate campaign of pressuring a state capitol news outlet into killing a survey of the heated Democratic primary.

The pollster, Steve Mitchell, told POLITICO the survey was conducted on behalf of Michigan Information & Research Service, an independent news outlet covering the state capitol that his firm regularly works with. But MIRS ultimately chose not to publish the survey after pushback from the McMorrow campaign.

The poll found McMorrow at just 6 percent ahead of the state’s pivotal Aug. 4 contest, far behind former public health official Abdul El-Sayed at 42 percent and Rep. Haley Stevens at 33 percent.

“The poll, in the eyes of the McMorrow campaign, understated their support,” Mitchell, whose firm Mitchell Research & Communications conducted and paid for the poll, told POLITICO. “And they put intense pressure on MIRS, and therefore MIRS decided that they weren’t going to run the survey. That’s their decision, and I support their decision.”

McMorrow has trailed the other two candidates in a number of recent public surveys, but 6 percent would mark a new low — a sign her campaign for the critical Michigan Senate seat may be mired in third place. McMorrow’s campaign told POLITICO the polling methodology was faulty and that its resulting memo was riddled with errors, including spelling her name wrong.

Kyle Melinn, a news editor with MIRS, said he killed the poll after speaking with the McMorrow campaign and other pollsters.

“I told Steve that the campaign did raise issues with the poll, and that they were pressuring me to not run the poll,” Melinn said in an interview. He added that after registering the McMorrow campaign’s concerns, he solicited the advice of other pollsters, and “didn’t run it because I didn’t feel comfortable with it.” The other unidentified pollsters shared his issues with the poll, according to Melinn.

McMorrow campaign spokesperson Jackson Boaz said in a statement that “Voicing concerns about a poll isn’t a pressure campaign. They chose not to publish a survey that is deeply flawed.” Asked whether the campaign had asked MIRS not to run the poll, Boaz said, “MIRS chose not to run the poll because they agreed the poll did not meet their standards.”

Boaz said the McMorrow campaign reached out to MIRS after “we noticed odd things about the data,” including that 0 percent of Black voters were undecided in the race; 0 or 1 percent of voters in Detroit and its metro area were undecided while other parts of the state had undecided voters at 25 percent, 48 percent, and even 54 percent; and that McMorrow was at just 5 percent support in her home base of Oakland County.

Their suspicion — which they said MIRS confirmed — was that the poll allowed anyone to take it through an open link, rather than having access controlled to ensure a random and representative sample of the state.

The poll was conducted through a methodology known as text-to-web, in which random voters are selected to receive a text message link to a survey to fill out. That allows pollsters to ensure they are reaching an appropriately wide-ranging group of voters. But the McMorrow campaign said all respondents received the same open-access link, which would allow anyone with the link to take the poll — potentially multiple times.

“The outlet that sponsored this poll declined to publish it because it didn’t meet their standards. It was conducted through an open SurveyMonkey link sent over text, meaning anyone who received this poll could vote multiple times or send the link to friends and supporters to impact the results,” Boaz said in a statement. “This is fundamental polling malpractice. We urge either of our opponents, or any reputable pollster, to stand by this shoddy methodology.”

In an interview, Mitchell admitted he got some of the polling memo wrong, saying for example that he meant to write El-Sayed supported Medicare for All, not “Social Security for All.” But he said he stood by the poll and its methodology.

“I have always had 100 percent confidence in all the polling I do,” Mitchell said. “I believe that we’ve been very strenuous in the methodology that we use. We’re very careful about it. We weighted it well, and more importantly, we have a track record that shows we are a strong and good pollster.”

“A poll is a poll,” Mitchell said when asked about the open link question, sharing a poll with POLITICO from GOP gubernatorial candidate John James that he said used a similar approach.

The controversy over the spiked poll underscores the importance of the Michigan Senate race. Democrats view defending the open seat as crucial to reclaiming the Senate majority, and the party establishment has mobilized hard against Bernie Sanders-backed El-Sayed, who they argue could pave the way to Republican Mike Rogers flipping the seat in November.

But recent pollssuggest McMorrow is falling behind El-Sayed, who is experiencing a surge in support, and Stevens, who is backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

In the memo about the contested poll, Mitchell wrote there has been a “huge erosion in support for Mallory McMorrow.”

“One of the reasons for her seeming collapse is the fact El-Sayed had received a large amount of unpaid media because of the endorsements by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Hasan Piker the anti-Semitic podcaster while Haley Stevens had an outside organization spend more than $6 million on her candidacy,” Mitchell wrote. However, he added: “Our poll was conducted June 11-13 which coincided with an ad buy of at least $5 million on behalf of McMorrow that started just the day before we began our polling. Therefore, McMorrow’s ads did not have enough time to impact our results.”

Source link

Protests against a luxury resort being built on vital wetlands in Albania are now well into their third week – and they’ve attracted the ire of Albanian PM Edi Rama. He denounced the opponents of the Trump-family-linked project as exhibiting a “fascist mentality”, and denied the building works’ massive environmental impacts.

On 3 June, the Canary reported on the anger against building works in the Vjosa-Narta protected landscape and the island of Sazan. At the time, the protests had lasted for three days. Now, however, the so-called ‘Flamingo Revolution’ has built momentum into a wider critique of Rama’s leadership.

Saturday 13 June alone saw between 100,000 and 200,000 protesters take to Albania’s streets. Politico described it as the largest event of the current spate of demonstrations thus far. For context, that’s just below a twelfth of the county’s 2.75 million-strong population.

Albania rages against neocolonial intrusion

The Vjosa-Narta protected landscape is the last remaining free-flowing river delta in the Mediterranean. It plays host to over 200 migratory bird species and 70 endangered species. These include monk seals, sea turtles, and the flamingos from which the protests take their name.

Now, however, a construction undertaking linked to Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner threatens that wetland. The $1.6bn luxury tourism project involves bulldozing the fragile ecosystem to make way for as many as 10,000 hotel rooms and villas. Forbes also explained that the hotels are just one piece of the puzzle:

Kushner’s planned developments in Albania are estimated at more than $5 billion combined, and the resorts mark only one part of Kushner’s broader effort to launch international development projects during his father-in-law President Donald Trump’s second term. (Previous reports link Kushner’s planned Albania resort with his private equity fund Affinity Partners, but a representative for the project told Forbes that Affinity is not involved.)

PM Edi Rama has strenuously denied that the development is destroying the fragile ecosystem. In doing so, he resorted to distinctly Trumpian claims of ‘fake news’, calling them:

one of the greatest falsehoods inflated beyond all imagination.

However, eyewitness accounts have confirmed otherwise. Ariel Brunner, the Europe and Central Asia Director of BirdLife International, wrote of attending an environmental preservation conference nearby:

We took our colleagues to the Vjosa delta, the last free-flowing river delta in the Mediterranean, and a refuge for more than 200 bird species, including flamingos and Dalmatian pelicans, nesting loggerhead sea turtles and the critically endangered Mediterranean monk seal. We thought we had come to inspect an airport built in open defiance of the law in the middle of the marshes.

To our horror, we walked straight into a vast new construction site in the very heart of the protected area. We saw excavators tearing up the beach. Lorries dumping gravel and cutting roads through ancient dunes and pine forest. A drill at work on the hillside. No licences posted, no companies named, no environmental permit of any kind.

Advertisement

‘Vile spectacle of gossip’

Albania’s government granted preliminary approval to the Trump-Kushner project back in December 2024. That date rings alarm bells – it was just one month after Donald Trump was elected for his second term. As such, the development attracted accusations of an attempt by Rama to strengthen ties with the Republican regime.

Whilst Rama has denied allegations of corruption and environmental vandalism since they first emerged, his recent rhetoric has taken on a different tone. Over the weekend of 13 June, the Albanian PM began to accuse to growing protest movement of exhibiting a “fascist mentality”.

On his podcast (translated by Euronews), Rama paid lip service to the “many” protesters “with good intentions”. However, he likened others to Nazi Germany, arguing that they exhibited a thought process:

that says: ‘Albania belongs to Albanians,’ meaning that everyone else is not welcome.

Rama also denied the demonstrators’ accusations that he was putting their country up for sale. He highlighted that the developments were taking place solely on government-owned or private lands. As such, the government will maintain ownership of Sazan Island and receive shares in the profits.

Likewise, the PM also turned his ire on “vile spectacle of gossip” in news reporting on the environmental destruction, writing that:

ANYONE WHO TRIES TO DRAG ALBANIA BACK DOWN WILL NEVER SUCCEED AGAIN.

‘It’s going to be a beautiful project’

However, it appears that it’s Rama’s own government that is in danger of ‘dragging Albania down’. Whilst the southeastern European country was well on its way to joining the EU in 2030, the Trump-Kushner project has thrown that hope into jeopardy.

Back in 2024, Albania changed its laws in order to make tourism developments easier on ecologically-protected lands. This opened the door for the current construction in the Vjosa-Narta.

On 9 June, European Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier warned that these changes – and the ensuing destruction of the Vjosa-Narta – could breach the environmental standards expected of any country joining the EU.

However, in spite of that warning and the ongoing protests, Rama remains hellbent on ploughing forwards. He told Reuters that:

It’s going to be a beautiful project and we’re going to ⁠do it and we’re going to be proud to contribute to Europe.

The Albanian prime minister claimed that he isn’t selling his country out, but that’s exactly what he’s done and more. For the sake of $5bn, he’s endangered a unique and precious ecosystem, public confidence in his government, and Albania’s bid to join the EU itself – and further enriched the Trump family to boot.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

Tomorrow, 18 June, the Makerfield by-election could open a path for Andy Burnham — current mayor of Greater Manchester — to make a bid for the leadership of the Labour Party.

However, given that Labour has lost most of its voters to left-wing, pro-Palestinian parties, it’s worth taking another look at Burnham’s stance on Gaza.

(Spoiler alert: it’s not great)

Labour losing votes on Palestine

Labour’s strategy whilst in government has lent heavily on tacking to the right in a vain attempt to appeal to Reform voters. However, the party actually lost four times as many voters to the Greens at the local elections. In fact, just 46% of Labour’s previous backers remained loyal at the ballot box.

Recent polling from Opinium revealed that a great deal of that shift was down to Labour’s political and material support for Israel, fuelling the genocide in Gaza.

Of the former Labour voters who switched to centrist or left-wing parties, 53% cited the PLP’s stance on Palestine as a factor. Likewise, a massive 74% said that their:

opinion of Labour would improve if the next leader were to adopt a strong position on Palestine, such as imposing sanctions on Israel. 

As such, Burnham could potentially win back a not-insignificant voting bloc if he were to steer the Labour Party toward an anti-genocide stance. This would also have the added bonus of bringing the UK into compliance with its duty to prevent genocide, per the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Burnham — ‘Not a gift but a right’

Of course, it would be remiss of us not to mention the context of Burnham’s abysmal record in West Asia. Back in 2003, as Labour MP for Leigh, he voted for Blair’s illegal invasion of Iraq — in spite of his criticisms of the ‘War on Terror’. In the aftermath, he also voted consistently against launching investigations into the Iraq war.

Regarding Palestine, Burnham visited the occupied West Bank back in 2012, in the company of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East. At the time, he called Palestinian statehood:

not a gift to be given but a right to be recognised.

In 2015, Burnham voiced his support for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. To this end, he also reiterated the call for recognition of the Palestinian state, telling the Palestine Solidarity Campaign that:

the appalling loss of life that occurred in Gaza last summer – with 2,131 Palestinians killed, the vast majority of them civilians, and seven Israeli civilians killed by rocket attacks from Gaza, makes the task of achieving a lasting and just peace all the more urgent.

Labour is clear that only a negotiated peace deal will bring the justice and security both sides deserve. That is why the international community must now take concrete steps to strengthen moderate Palestinian opinion. We are clear that Palestinian recognition at the UN would be such a step.

Gee, do we think maybe the lack of ‘moderate’ Palestinian opinion might be related to the 2,000+ mostly-civilian deaths?

Burnham: Friend of Israel

However, Burnham has also been a member of the Labour Friends of Israel since 2015, and called boycott campaigns against the occupying state “spiteful”. Al Jazeera also reported that Israel was at the top of Burnham’s list to visit, had he won his 2015 leadership bid. He described Israel as a:

democracy that has a long history of protecting minorities and promoting civil rights.

When Israel redoubled its war on Palestine in 2023, Burnham — alongside Sadiq Khan and Anas Sarwar — was one of the earlier senior Labour figures to call for a ceasefire “from all sides” (deeply equivocal language again there).

However, he also supported Israel’s ‘right’ to carry out “targeted action within international law”. This ‘targeted action’ was, of course, very clearly far from the actual genocidal actions of the occupying forces.

In July 2025, he issued a plea for Mancunians to donate to UKMed, a charity supporting medical access in Gaza. In a video address, he described the suffering of Palestinians as “beyond words”, adding:

We stand with people in times of need, it’s who we are.

And the genocide?

However, standing with the Palestinians apparently doesn’t extend to recognising the war crimes being carried out against them. In a 4 June Guardian interview, Burnham specifically declined to describe Israel’s actions as genocidal:

I can’t judge things of that enormity from where I am as mayor of Greater Manchester. But I do have concerns about the disproportionate nature of what has happened in terms of the destruction, and there has to be a full process of investigation and accountability.

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory had issued a report stating that Israel was committing genocide 9 months prior to Burnham’s statement.

In May 2026, Your Party’s Jeremy Corbyn wrote to Burnham, urging him to state publicly that he would back an inquiry. The Manchester mayor did not respond. Corbyn also later launched a petition to pressure Burnham into making a statement to that same effect.

Likewise, when the Palestine Solidarity Campaign asked the Makerfield candidates what they would do to “uphold the rights of Palestinian people”, Burnham stayed silent. Meanwhile, his Green Party counterpart, Sarah Wakefield, was quick to respond:

I unequivocally accept the findings of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry and numerous other expert bodies that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. I additionally accept the 2024 ICJ ruling that Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid against Palestinians.

I fully support a total ban on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements and all other trade that aids or assists Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory. I also support comprehensive sanctions on Israel, including a full arms embargo. Without doubt, I support reversing the authoritarian use of public order and anti-terror legislation to suppress protest in support of Palestinian rights.

‘Both sides’ is the wrong side

As the Canary has repeatedly reported, Burnham has consistently failed to voice a credible plan or any real opinions in his Makerfield candidacy. Instead, he’s echoed a distinctly centrist, Starmerite call for non-specific “change”.

However, as we’ve seen quite clearly through Burnham’s pitiful equivocation on Palestine, paying lip-service to both sides too often boils down to tacit support for the wrong side.

If the Labour hopeful cannot learn that lesson, he’ll follow his predecessor into meaningless oblivion — and the UK’s complicity in Israel’s genocide will continue unabated.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

Ex-defence minister Al Carns has condemned the waste and inefficiency of the British war machine. The former commando wants more to be spent on war. He’s wrong, but his latest interview does expose certain grim truths about the UK war machine.

Carns resigned his cabinet post as a junior defence minister on 11 June, citing Starmer’s failings on the so-called Defence Investment Plan (DIP):

We owe those who serve the UK the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it's done. We are failing on both.

I’ve spent my whole time in government making that case. Number 10 will not listen, so I am resigning as Minister for the Armed Forces.

Advertisement

Letter to the PM… pic.twitter.com/HDCIOcVsA5

— Al Carns (@AlistairCarns) June 11, 2026

Al Carns resigned hours after his boss defence secretary John Healey threw in the towel. Both men were pro-war Starmer loyalists from the right-wing of the Labour Party.

Like many such people, Carns likes to externalise the UK’s problems onto, for example, Russia:

Moscow is probably rubbing its belly. I think it looks at the social division that we’re having in the UK and the amplification through social media as success for its propaganda campaign.

Carns, who has been touted to replace Starmer, is a militarist who wants more money for war. But hidden in his latest Guardian interview are some important truths about the racket we know as the military-industrial complex.

Carns told the Guardian how defence projects are deeply inefficient:

It is unbelievable. You turn a stone over and get another shock – how has that been allowed to go on?

And:

you turn another stone over, and it is just layers of bureaucracy which now cost us more than the product you’re getting itself. I can’t describe the level of inefficiency in the system that we’ve been left with and we’re trying to unpeel. But it’s actually exceptionally difficult to do.

Al Carns is half-right, we do need reform

This is a pretty typical rant about bureaucracy. These sentiments are hardly uncommon among conservative-minded ex-soldiers. And on waste in the war machine, Carns makes some good points:

Take tanks for example – 100 to 200 tanks isn’t the most useful way of spending our money. They were ordered ages ago, and if you cancel them now, that’s sunk cost … that’s cost us £700m.

Adding:

Well, I think these are the difficult discussions we have to make – the cost of running them is in the hundreds of millions, and so I would rather take that chunk of money … and put it into those innovative systems that we need to buy.

Al Carns called for root and branch reform:

We have the fifth biggest defence budget in the world. Do you think we get a good bang for buck? We need to completely and utterly overhaul our procurement.

Adding:

We need to make sure a large proportion of the resource and money is spent this side of 2030, to make sure that if we get caught in a geographical confrontation, we’re ready.

Carns is half-right. We do need a massive overhaul and reallocation of war spending. But Carns would allocate cash towards things like AI. In reality, we need to stop handing bags of cash to arms firms full stop, and build actual human security: jobs, healthcare, education, green technology and so on. Carns, a career military officer, might not be able to see that. But we can.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link