The Met Police has issued a statement praising itself for its decision to ban today’s London march against the Iran war. The force allied with the Israel lobby to ban the annual Al Quds Day march and limit it to a ‘static rally’. Then it boasted how great its decision had been because its repression of British citizens’ right to march in peaceful protest had caused some not to attend. It ended by thanking police officers for coming from all over the place to prevent an anti-war protest and “keeping protestors and Londoners safe”:

News – 15 March 2026 17:05

Public order update

Today’s policing operation at the Al Quds day protest and counter-protest concluded this afternoon.

Assistant Commissioner Ade Adelekan, Public Order lead said:

Advertisement

“Our policing plan worked, with both groups kept apart and we saw no attempts from either side to breach conditions by marching. Both sets dispersed as planned from 15:00hrs.

“We saw significantly fewer people attend than we had anticipated. The restrictions and conditions meant many people chose to stay away and not to attend the protest or counter-protest.

“This shows our decision to apply for the ban was the right one. A static protest meant it was easier for officers to keep the two groups apart and prevent serious public disorder.

“We made 12 arrests including for showing support for a proscribed organisation, affray and for threatening or abusive behaviour. We are also investigating chants made by a speaker at the Al Quds protest.

Advertisement

“As I said from the outset, the decision to ban the protest march does not set a precedent and we will continue to consider each protest on a case-by-case basis.

“I want to extend my thanks to the officers, including those from across the country who supported us. Their professionalism and commitment helped us to keep protestors and Londoners safe.”

Yeah, well done lads and lasses. You protected us all from the big bad mob that doesn’t want the UK to assist two genocidal regimes from killing people. Bravo 👍.

Met Police, happy to repress

The Met doesn’t say so in its statement, but the “chants made by a speaker” were rapper Bob Vylan repeating his Glastonbury 2025 “Death death to the IDF” chant. As well he might, since police and the CPS already looked at the exact same chant then and decided just four months ago, in December 2025, that the chant merited no further action. Ok then, ok now — unless of course the point is to smear the protest rather than to prosecute.

But the dishonesty ran even deeper. Both the anti-war protest and the several phone-booths worth of pro-war, pro-Israel counter-protesters were treated as if equal in size and significance — when in fact, tens of thousands still turned up to demand peace, despite police and state repression:

Contrast this with the open racism and tiny numbers of the pro-Israel hate-gathering:

Today, at the Al-Quds Day counter-protest in London, the Mossad-linked hate group “Stop the Hate UK” played a tune gloating about the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader.

They’re such incredibly sick and hateful people. pic.twitter.com/JhTeWwugBO

— Wokerati Marty (@WokeratiMarty) March 15, 2026

Contrary to its claims of keeping both ‘sides’ apart, sources at the scene said the Met also allowed far-right pro-Israel ‘auditors’ in among the peaceful anti-war protest.

In reality, the Met Police and its bosses in Whitehall and Downing Street are repressing the will of the British public. More than twice as many UK people oppose the US-Israel war of aggression on Iran. Almost as many oppose the Starmer regime allowing the US to use British airbases to attack Iran. Even more certainly would, if they understood that this enabling consists of directly refuelling and re-arming the carpet-bombing B-52 high-altitude bombers Trump is using to slaughter Iranian civilians:

Keir Starmer has turned Britain into a police state over the heads, and against the will, of the people of this country. He is a war criminal just as surely and just as guiltily as Trump, Netanyahu and their racist enablers.

Featured image via Middle East Eye

(Alamy)

4 min read14 min

At a Downing Street press conference on Monday morning, Starmer said there would be “immediate support” worth £53m for households reliant on heating oil that are “most exposed” to rising prices.

Referring to reports that oil companies had been cancelling orders and hiking prices, the Prime Minister said legal action would be taken if they had been found to have broken the law.

UK households will be protected by the Ofgem cap until July. However, energy bills could rise that month if global prices remain high.

Drivers are already seeing the impact of the war in Iran, with diesel and petrol prices rising sharply in recent weeks. 

On Sunday night, US President Donald Trump called for European allies to join him in the Middle East, telling the Financial Times that NATO faces a “very bad” future if allies like the UK do not help to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The threat of attack by Iran for traffic passing through the Strait, which is one of the most important trade routes in the world, has led to a spike in oil and gas prices. 

Starmer said he was working with allies on a “viable collective plan” to restore freedom of navigation for ships seeking to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

“We’ve already acted alongside other countries to release emergency oil stocks at a level that is completely unprecedented. But, ultimately, we have to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market.”

Questioned by the media about what shape this plan would take, Starmer said he was “looking at options” and wanted to involve “as many partners as possible”. 

The Prime Minister said that while the UK would take “the necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies”, it would “not be drawn into the wider war”.

Starmer has so far committed the UK to “defensive” action, allowing the US to use British bases to carry out strikes in Iran.

However, he refused to join the initial US and Israeli attacks on Iran, arguing that there was no viable, long-term plan or clear legal basis for the action.

In his press conference, Starmer said the question of “whether to commit British troops to military action is the most serious responsibility for any Prime Minister”.

“I have been attacked by some for my decision not to join the offensive against Iran. 

“But at every stage, I’ve stood by my principles, principles which I held just as strongly when it came to debate about the Iraq war in 2003, principles which I believe are shared by the British people, that our decision should be based on a calm, level-headed assessment of the British national interest. 

“And that if we are to send our service men and women into harm’s way, the very least they deserve is to know that they do so on a legal basis and with a properly thought-through plan,” he said.

Referring to the Conservatives and Reform UK’s initial stance on the war, when both parties called on the UK to join the first US and Israeli strikes, Starmer said some would have “rushed the UK headlong into this war without the full picture of what they’re sending our forces into, and without a plan to get us out”, adding that approach was “not leading”, but “following”.

“My leadership is about standing firm for the British interest, no matter the pressure. And I believe time will show that we have the right approach, right on the economy and the cost of living, right on defence and energy, and right on this war in the best interests of the British people.”

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has warned companies in which Americans hold shares to evacuate from West Asia “so they are not harmed”.

An accompanying graphic circulated by the IRGC lists various industrial, tech, energy, and financial firms operating in Jordan and the UAE, including specific office locations.

The list includes: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Microsoft, Oracle, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Amazon Web Services
and KKR.

pic.twitter.com/1DWLibrAms

— PSYOPOLY (@PSYOPOLYreport) March 14, 2026

Advertisement

Iran is hitting the US where it hurts — financially.

Iran mastered the art of asymmetric warfare. It recognized the US empire’s weak points, and is hitting them hard.

First Iran struck US bases.

Then it closed the Strait of Hormuz and damaged oil fields, causing oil prices to skyrocket.

Now it is targeting major US corporations. https://t.co/MSpjLxKu0k

Advertisement

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 15, 2026

Iran is taking the moral high ground — which honestly isn’t hard when you’re fighting genocidal maniacs.

The US and Israel did not warn the Iranian school full of little girls that they were about to bomb it.

All things considered, Iran is extremely restrained compared to certain “civilised” forces targeting schoolgirls without warning. https://t.co/wjwGFTpVFm

— A wild viscacha (@isoboy) March 15, 2026

Advertisement

Who are the real terrorists?

Notice how Iran warns the innocent civilians ahead of time to evacuate. To avoid killing civilians and only damage US property. The US and Israel give no such warnings. They bomb haphazardly with no regard for innocent life.

Which one sounds more like terrorists? https://t.co/W2yloh3631

— 🔻𝖘𝖕𝖊𝖗𝖔🔻 (@vCyberSpero) March 15, 2026

And in comparison, the companies Iran might now target are all propping up Israel’s illegal war.

Very good of Iran to warn them to evacuate even though they ARE Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Microsoft , ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Amazon, Boston Consulting Group, and Bain — arguably combatant companies that run imperial wars. https://t.co/GE83yfvePZ

— clay vessel (@ShabanaMir1) March 15, 2026

Iran is singlehandedly decolonising West Asia. But unlike Israel and the US, it is concerned about civilian casualties.

Iran’s retaliation

The UAE has repeatedly allowed the US and Israel to launch strikes on Iran from its territory. Therefore, its fair game.

translation: “the UAE just fucked up big time by allowing the USA to launch continuous attacks on us from there.” https://t.co/YfJAgOwGk7

— Static Breeze (@pipN_ainT_EZ) March 15, 2026

Advertisement

As Epstein would say, ‘whoops’.

the most important lesson from the history of all empires:

don’t fight a war where you have a ton of fixed capital locked up https://t.co/6SFnJZAM15

— Logan McMillen 🌹🕊️🌎 (@South_Gradient) March 15, 2026

Israel only colonised Palestine in 1948, whereas Iran is attempting to defend its millennia-old history.

Iran 🇮🇷 is merely fighting to defend its 6000 year history and has every right to respond however it wants. https://t.co/7CDPbQEfyO

— Godide🌟 (@Ntuli_Theko) March 15, 2026

Company values

The Canary has extensively covered several companies on IRCG’s target list.

Lockheed Martin is the manufacturer of Israel’s F-35 warplanes, which have been linked to specific war crimes in Gaza.

The Times of Israel previously reported:

The ministry said a delegation to the US signed a letter of agreement for the $3 billion deal that included 25 advanced stealth fighters built by Lockheed Martin.

Similarly, Boeing provides Israel with F-15 jets, Apache helicopters, satellites, military hardware and missiles.

Back in 2022, Israel used Boeing attack helicopters and fighter jets to attack Gaza. It murdered 44 Palestinians, including 15 children and 4 women, and wounded 360.

Microsoft also has deep ties with the Israeli state and provides services to the government, the Ministry of Defence, the military, and security bodies. All of Israel’s military apps run on Microsoft’s cloud service.

Leaked documents also show that Microsoft has significantly increased its operations with Israel’s military since 2023.

It is clear that since October 7, Israel has had the might of the world’s technology giants supporting its illegal siege of Gaza and Palestine. However, if profits start to suffer, maybe companies will rethink their ties to a genocidal terrorist state.

Iran is giving the US and Israel a taste of their own medicine and hitting them where it hurts, whilst also trying to clear the BDS list. Maybe Trump will get a reality check and rein in his ego — or maybe US companies will suffer just like Palestine, Iran and Lebanon.

Feature image via Hult International Business School/YouTube

Lewis Norton is a PhD Researcher at the Department of International Politics at Aberystwyth University.

 Those familiar with recent events in Welsh politics will understand when I say that managing the Welsh Conservatives has become a particularly complex arrangement.

With the elections to the Senedd approaching in mere months, the party has had to address defections to Reform at both its public-facing level as well as its backroom staff, and polling is continuously showing the party to be stuck at around 12 per cent, which is a potentially dangerous level to be polling at given the intricacies of Wales’ new electoral system.

Chiefly among the issues the Welsh party has faced is the ongoing internal tensions around the party’s stance on devolution.

Darren Millar, the leader of the Conservatives’ Senedd Group, has been explicit in saying that abolishing the Senedd is off the table, and in seeking to ensure that the party’s candidates share this position, has come under frequent scrutiny from those within (or formerly within) the party who accuse the party leadership of a “war on the grassroots”

With a matter of weeks left until voting day, the potential cracks of this approach are beginning to reveal themselves. Despite Darren Millar’s insistence that anti-devolution candidates would not be able to stand, in the case of Calum Davies, there is a candidate topping the party list who has been vocal in his opposition to devolution, and candidates further down the lists have also made suggestions of a devo-sceptic position. Naturally, affirming this position also goes against the grain of the majority of the Welsh Conservative grassroots and voter base at large, of whom two-thirds desire the Senedd’s abolition.

Beyond the party’s grassroots, there is also an untapped and underappreciated market for devo-sceptic views amongst the wider Welsh electorate. In YouGov polling, support for abolition of the Senedd and a Senedd with reduced powers stood at 31 per cent and 23 per cent respectively (compared with 24 per cent supporting Welsh independence). While this is below the level of support for the status quo or more devolution, no option enjoys majority support amongst the Welsh electorate, and polls like this one show that clearly there is an undercurrent of devo-scepticism within the Welsh electorate.

The party’s platform on devolution is somewhat ambiguous, which is a common theme throughout the post-devolution era. While officially supportive of its existence, the party has dedicated a lot of its campaigning energy thus far against the expansion of the Senedd’s membership from 60 to 96. This may be somewhat ingrained in a level of devo-scepticism, but it has largely been argued on a cost and practicality basis as opposed to an ideological disagreement and has perhaps become a proxy to avoid addressing the “elephant in the room” of real devo-scepticism which has become such a divisive topic.

It would not be fair, however, to suggest that the party’s direction on this matter is without reason. In fact, it is heavily grounded in logical elite decision-making which those looking at party management would expect to observe.

Firstly, the Conservative Party, perhaps more than any party in the democratic world, sees itself as a natural party of government. This office-seeking logic of the Conservatives is deeply established, and the party has a long and sustained record of adaptation to political and societal change to achieve high office. This logic, seemingly, holds even in Welsh politics despite a long and deep-rooted history of Conservative support in Wales lagging far behind its support in England. As a result, since the birth of the (then) Welsh Assembly in 1999, the Welsh Conservatives have usually attempted to put forward a serious platform for the use of devolved powers in Welsh elections as opposed to dipping their toes into the constitutional questions of the existence of the devolved legislature.

Secondly, in a similar vein to the first reason, the Welsh Conservative aversion to committing to a devo-sceptic platform has become enshrined in a vote-winning logic. While, as mentioned earlier, there is clearly a market for these views amongst a minority of the electorate, targeting this group comes with risks which the party management likely deem unacceptable. The primary risk is that by focusing on the wishes of the grassroots and the devo-sceptic portion of the electorate, the party may alienate the majority of the Welsh electorate who find themselves on the outside of this cluster. Furthermore, those not aligned with the existence of the Senedd are less likely to turn out to vote in its elections. This has been observed throughout devolution, as many Conservative voters in Westminster elections simply don’t turn out at all in Senedd elections. From a vote-seeking perspective, why appeal to a section of the electorate who don’t vote?

If devo-sceptics want to increase their influence on the agenda-setting of the Senedd, then they need to turn out like they haven’t previously. This is somewhat of a double-edged sword, with the lack of a major outwardly devo-sceptic party likely contributing to the lesser turnout, but even where parties campaigning on an abolition platform have been present (namely the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party – who in 2021 were expected to achieve representation) they haven’t been able to mobilise this voter base to achieve anything substantial. Such cases likely reinforce the current Welsh Conservative antipathy toward adopting such a position.

The question here is whether this approach is tenable in the long term. Increasingly, there is a sense that the party needs to make a decision on this constitutional question which has been an ever-present issue for nearly three decades. Ultimately, the sustainability of this approach will depend largely on the result the party achieves in May. In particular, what the make-up of the potentially reduced in size Conservative Senedd group is, and its impact on the dominant faction of the group which currently accommodates devolution. If a smaller Conservative group is proportionately more populated with candidates who support an abolitionist position, we may quickly see a change in tact post-election.

Such a change may be further incentivised depending on how Reform’s Senedd cohort addresses devolution. Thus far, in the face of a similar dilemma as the Conservatives, Reform have also sought to accommodate devolution, and are insistent that they will be a constructive presence to “make devolution work”, going so far as to express excitement at the Senedd expansion which the Conservatives have been in steadfast opposition towards, although this excitement was likely more strategically based on the opportunities it provides for the party rather than an ideological delight towards an expanded Senedd.

Similarly to the Conservatives, whether this position holds for Reform will depend on the composition of its Senedd cohort. If the last time a Farage-led party achieved representation in the Senedd on the basis of working constructively within the institution is to be informative (in the case of UKIP in 2016), then Reform may bring with them an influx of very devo-sceptic Senedd members. But if they don’t, and a potentially small Conservative group coming out of the other side of the huge external shock of a poor election result observes the low-hanging fruit of differentiation through scepticism, then a change in tact may become much harder to resist, and potentially even necessary.

What is meningitis?

What’s behind the outbreak?

How is meningitis treated?

Donald Trump left critics in disbelief on Sunday with a remark about his Iran war during a press huddle on board Air Force One.

The president was discussing his call for other countries to send ships to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, the vital — and currently effectively shut — waterway off Iran through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil passes.

Asked how quickly those deployments would happen, Trump said it would “start immediately,” with different countries offering different forms of assistance, including minesweeper boats.

He later said: “So, we need, I, I would really, I’m demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory because it is their territory, it’s the place from which they get their energy and they should come and they should help us protect it.”

Then came the line that quickly sparked reaction online:

“You could make the case that maybe we shouldn’t even be there at all because we don’t need it.”

“We have a lot of oil,” said Trump. “We were the number one producer anywhere in the world times two by double at least double. Now I think it’s much higher than that. But we do it. It’s almost like we do it for habit, but we also do it for some very good allies that we have in the Middle East.”

Britain has a bad habit of turning policy debates into battles – one side pitched against the other. The discussion around text and data mining (TDM), the process by which AI uses data, has become the latest example, creating a false choice between innovation and creativity.

That framing is wrong. Britain’s creative industries are one of the country’s great success stories. So too is British tech and innovation – an area where we shine on the world stage. Policymakers should not force a choice between them, but create the conditions for both to grow together.

This matters because TDM is no longer a niche technical issue, nor is it confined to major technology firms. It is now widely used across the economy and sits at the heart of how modern businesses use AI, analyse information, develop new products and raise productivity – from Britain’s car industry to new medicines for the NHS.

Public First research shows that one in five UK businesses already use TDM tools. In sectors central to the UK’s industrial strategy – life sciences and financial services – that figure rises to a third. If we want the UK to lead in AI adoption, scientific discovery, advanced services and digital innovation, we cannot ignore that access to AI tools will determine whether British firms can compete.

More than half of British businesses want to move from basic to advanced integration of AI and cloud technologies within two to three years. Yet many told us that legal risk is holding them back. Seventy‑four per cent of businesses performing TDM said access to external data is essential to their operations.

That should concern ministers. Britain’s growth outlook is far from rosy. Productivity remains weak, fiscal headroom is tight, and every serious economic strategy relies on far faster diffusion of AI and digital technologies. In these circumstances, we cannot afford to close off potential growth by making it harder for UK businesses to compete in a global economy that is only becoming more cut‑throat.

The decisions the government takes now have major consequences. If Britain creates an environment where companies have clear permission to embrace new technology, our modelling suggests AI‑powered businesses could contribute as much as £510 billion to UK GDP by 2035. But under a highly restrictive path, that falls to £290 billion – a £220 billion gap, roughly equivalent to Scotland’s GDP (including oil and gas).

None of this is to dismiss the legitimate concerns of rights holders. Creators should be confident their work is respected and rewarded. But we should not respond by building a regime so restrictive that businesses from biotech to education hesitate to use AI.

Licensing is one obvious part of the solution. Voluntary commercial agreements are beginning to emerge and can offer value for rights holders while giving technology firms access to high‑quality, curated data. Both tech companies and rights holders are already investing in licensing tools. Developing workable models is far preferable to a prolonged policy battle.

Yet licensing alone will not be enough. If companies lack confidence that they can use AI for commercial advantage, the framework becomes too cumbersome and too uncertain. That would throw grit into the gears of UK innovation at exactly the moment growth is needed most – leaving the country poorer, less productive and less competitive.

Creative industries would feel those consequences too. Many of the UK’s most dynamic creative sectors – from video games to visual effects – have themselves argued for commercial TDM exemptions. Britain does not need to choose. It can build a framework that gives both sectors the confidence to invest, experiment and work together.

Other countries have already made that choice, from the EU to Singapore and Japan. Yet a polarised domestic debate risks leaving Britain behind. The Government should aim for a settlement that supports both creativity and innovation – and look at how widely this kind of AI innovation is already being used across the economy to give them the confidence to act.

Neil Ross is Director at Public First and leads its Technology, Media and Telecoms practice.

4 min read11 min

The proposals now before Parliament are the result of years of detailed analysis, technical studies, and independent expert assurance. It is right that work of this scale has prompted wide debate, particularly given the very significant costs involved.

There is, however, a broad consensus on one central point: the Victorian building requires major work to address fundamental issues such as fire safety, ageing infrastructure, asbestos, and deteriorating stonework. Without decisive action, these challenges will continue to grow.

Most of the proposed investment—around 85 per cent of construction costs for the Palace of Westminster—is focused on priority works. This includes replacing mechanical, power, water, sewage and heating systems; improving fire safety; managing asbestos safely; and repairing extensive stone damage. These are not optional enhancements but core requirements to keep a complex, heavily occupied historic building functioning safely and effectively.

One of the biggest costs is linked to the extensive network of increasingly outdated services embedded throughout the Palace. The steam heating system for example was installed in the 1950s and has become increasingly unreliable. Recent years have seen up to 80 leaks annually and just a few weeks ago it took several days to fix a major failure.

Ensuring that heating, power and water systems can operate dependably across a 150-year-old building with more than 1,100 rooms is a basic necessity. Improved energy efficiency would be a welcome and sensible byproduct of modernising these systems.

Fire safety is another critical area. Proper fire zoning in a building used daily by thousands of people is essential. In fact, these measures will build on the original fire safety principles in Sir Charles Barry’s design, which have been compromised over time by successive alterations. Restoring that integrity and improving fire protection is both achievable and vital.

Alongside these priority works, the proposals also deliver important benefits for everyone who uses the building. Improving step-free access to around 60 per cent would make Parliament more usable for those who work here and for visitors. In many cases, accessibility improvements are a welcome benefit of safety upgrades—for example, the installation of fire evacuation lifts gives an in-built accessibility improvement. 

The plans also include a permanent education centre for the tens of thousands of children on school visits every year as well as an improved visitor entrance and visitor routes. These changes are designed to enhance security and safety for visitors and those who work in Parliament. Basement visitor routes and education centre would make use of existing, underused spaces that would be repurposed with sympathetic restoration that respects the Palace’s historic fabric.

Importantly, these education and visitor improvements represent a modest proportion of the budget— between 0.8 and 2.7 per cent of Palace construction costs—yet they deliver significant benefits for security, safety, and public access.

No one underestimates the scale or cost of a programme of this complexity and duration. That is why extensive parliamentary scrutiny has already been applied and will continue throughout the project. Robust accountability for public spending is essential.

What is equally clear is that delaying decisions comes at a price. Putting off a decision will add many hundreds of millions to the costs of doing the work due to the impact of inflation. As the report warns, continuing with this approach will lead to managed decline of one of the most recognised buildings in the world as it becomes increasingly unfit for the country it serves. It will mean higher maintenance costs, and increasing safety and operational risks for those who visit and work in the building.

After more than a decade of studies, committees and analysis, it is evident that there is no perfect or low cost option. The recommended way forward is a pragmatic one: approval for seven years of work to begin now, with costs capped at £3 billion, averaging £429 million a year (both figures exclude inflation). This approach allows work to proceed while continuing to bear down on costs while testing and assuring designs with MPs and Peers before decisions on the longer term work need to be taken.

Investment in the Palace will also support thousands of jobs and apprenticeships from modern construction and engineering to traditional crafts. The restoration will need the skills of businesses and people in nations and regions across the UK in this national endeavour to preserve one of the world’s most recognised and cherished buildings.

As custodians of this national symbol, we have a responsibility to act. Continuing to defer decisions only increases risk and cost. The sensible way forward is to begin the work now, safeguard the future of the Palace of Westminster, and ensure it remains a safe, functioning home for UK democracy. It is time to get on with the job.

What did the paper find?

Positive views about ageing seemed to be linked to these results