On 2 March 2026, Hezbollah fired a missile salvo from the south of Lebanon towards Israel. The rockets were reportedly intercepted before reaching occupied Palestinian territory. Militarily, the strike achieved little. Politically, however, it carried a clear declaration of intent: after fifteen months of restraint and over 15,400 Israeli ceasefire violations, the Lebanese resistance was signalling its readiness to fight.

Lebanon at risk

The response from the Lebanese government was immediate — and revealing.

Just one day later, on 3 March, the government led by the US-backed president Joseph Aoun and the US-backed PM Nawaf Salam moved to outlaw Hezbollah’s military wing. The decision raised obvious questions. if Hezbollah’s weapons were legal before, then why had the government spent all this time and resources trying to disarm Hezbollah over the past year? If Hezbollah’s weapons were already illegal, why convene a cabinet meeting to restate the obvious?

The answer to those questions arrived very quickly.

On the very same day, reports emerged that Lebanese Armed Forces checkpoints were intercepting young men attempting to reach southern Lebanon with weapons. These men were trying to join the defence against the nascent Israeli invasion. Around 12 were detained.

These checkpoints were put in place after the Lebanese army had evacuated its bases and positions in the south earlier. The government justified the decision bluntly: confronting the Israeli army would be “suicide”.

Israel advances into Lebanese territory. The Lebanese army withdraws, clearing the way for the invasion. And when civilians attempt to defend their own land, they are stopped by that same army.

Then came the final nail into this coffin

On Sunday 8 March, 3 of those 12 young men were brought before Lebanon’s military court. Their charge: carrying weapons.

What this really means? Anyone attempting to resist the Israeli invasion will be treated as a criminal by the Lebanese regime.

A chronicle of governments serving occupation

History has seen this pattern before. Governments under occupation often turn their institutions against their own people.

In Nazi-occupied France, the Vichy regime collaborated with the occupier and persecuted the resistance. In southern Lebanon during Israel’s occupation, the South Lebanon Army under Antoine Lahad served Israeli interests against its own population.

If it’s not treason to remove the army from defensive positions during an invasion, actively preventing citizens from defending their country — and prosecuting them for it — must surely be treason!

Vichy France wasn’t an extraordinary thing that has never happened before and will not happen again.

Marshal Philippe Pétain isn’t an exceptional human being. This is what you get when you have a civilian government under military occupation. A treacherous government that serves the interests of the occupation against the interests of its own people.

So the question now that arises is: who is occupying Lebanon?

The immediate answer to that question seems obvious: Israel. And indeed Israel continues to violate Lebanese sovereignty with regular incursions and attacks — holds the Lebanese Chebaa Farms, Kafarshouba Hills and the 10 Ghajar villages, and has occupied 5 points inside Lebanon where it built advanced military outposts right after the ceasefire was signed.

But the deeper answer to the question lies somewhere else

All clear, you can come out

In Lebanon stands one of the largest diplomatic compounds on earth: the United States Embassy Beirut. Built in the town of Aoukar, just north of Beirut, in a country barely larger than the West Midlands, the embassy is a shrine to Washington’s influence over Lebanese political life.

The Lebanese people are being targeted with US made bombs, dropped by US made airplanes, funded by US-taxpayer’s money, enabled by the orange man in Washington. While the Lebanese government is obeying every US order — placing its sovereignty and right to monopolise violence at risk.

The US occupation of Lebanon is getting harder and harder to ignore.

Featured image via the Canary

According to Deadline, Warner Bros executives have had a tense meeting with the BBC following their choice to air a racial slur during their broadcast of the BAFTAs. The racial slur refers to the n-word involuntarily shouted by tourettes campaigner John Davidson. The preventable incident triggered deep upset for Black and disabled communities.

The BBC have a lot to answer for over this horrible incident. John Davidson could not control his use of the slur, as involuntary and inappropriate outbursts can occur due to coprolalia, a socially stigmatising symptom of Tourette’s syndrome. Likewise, the pain felt by members of the Black community who heard such a derogatory slur – especially at such a poignant time – cannot be forgotten. Many communities were effectively slapped in the face in the aftermath of this egregious broadcasting failure.

Responsibility instead lies wholly with the BBC, which cut numerous other slurs but chose to keep this one, making what many see as an incredibly divisive and polarising editorial decision by the state broadcaster.

EXCLUSIVE: Amid ongoing reviews into the debacle that led to a racial slur at the BAFTA Film Awards airing on British television, Deadline hears of a difficult meeting between Warner Bros. and the BBC.

Three sources familiar with the encounter said ‘Sinners’ studio Warner Bros.… pic.twitter.com/Ma5oB7OcWD

Advertisement

— Deadline (@DEADLINE) March 6, 2026

BBC face ‘furious’ Warner Bros

Deadline cite three sources close to the encounter between the BBC and Warner Bros bosses who stated that “grave concerns” were raised about the decision to air the deeply offensive slur. At the meeting, Deadline reported that:

Warner Bros demanded to know what steps the BBC will take to prevent a similar incident from happening again. “They were furious,” said one person briefed on the encounter, which took place last week. Warner executives had initially sought a meeting with the BBC on the Monday following the ceremony, but were left frustrated when the gathering did not materialize.

They added:

Deadline has pieced together different accounts, and it appears as though the incident stemmed from miscommunication on the night. The BBC and producer Penny Lane did not hear the racial slur from their position in the outside broadcast truck, but later caught and cut a second incident, in which Davidson again said the N-word when Sinners star Wunmi Mosaku collected her Supporting Actress prize.

The BBC have since apologised for their failure in a published statement. They said there had been a ‘serious mistake’ and subsequently removed it from iPlayer. Furthermore, they have confirmed their executive complaints team will conduct a ‘fast-tracked investigation’ into the incident with the broadcaster once again marking its own homework.

However, the BBC team’s excuse for the ‘miscommunication’ falls flat. They pointed to another incident where Davidson directed the slur at Wunmi Mosaku during her Sinners award acceptance, claiming they thought this was the incident in question. Apparently, removing one n-word slur proves they recognised its harm and heeded Warner Bros’ request to cut it. They just didn’t notice the other one, ‘whoopsie daisy’ say the BBC.

Sinners Star Wunmi Mosaku Says She ‘Can’t Forgive’ BBC For Keeping Racial Slur In Bafta Broadcast: ‘Brought Tears To My Eyes’https://t.co/MODMsyqrFB

— Britannia Daily (@BritanniaDailyy) March 2, 2026

On the other hand, this could indicate that no one at BAFTA, BBC or Penny Lane Studios really saw the incident as significantly offensive or upsetting to warrant removal. After all, surely this pretty notable incident would have stuck in some minds at the very least if they had.

Deadline further reported that Warner Bros and the BBC held discussions immediately after the BAFTAs and agreed to remove it from iPlayer. They recognised that the slur had been missed by producer Penny Lane as soon as it went live. But, yet again, the BBC were rather disingenuous in their feigned horror given it stayed up until midday the following day. This gave ample time for division to mount, leaving various already embattled communities once again feeling appalled.

It is difficult to get away from the allegation that the BBC team were aware of this specific n-word incident and simply saw more value in airing it. After all, they managed to catch other slurs from Davidson on the night. And, on one of the biggest nights in British television it is entirely unacceptable that someone from the team simply didn’t hear the slur.

Stolen moment

Nevertheless, we cannot ignore that the actions taken to address the harm caused have simply ended up reducing coverage of what should have been a powerful moment for disabled and Black communities.

Both groups lost vital and long-overdue visibility that signaled significant progress in the industry. After all, people with Tourette’s often face exclusion due to the social stigma surrounding their condition, while BAFTA made history as Sinners’ Ryan Coogler became the first Black director to win – earning 13 nominations for the Jim Crow-era horror film. All whilst racism and bigotry are rising just as quickly as Reform and Restore’s pockets get ever heavier.

Thus, multiple communities have been utterly failed by the BBC.

Humility and accountability, not evasion.

Pretending this was an oversight or accident simply does not cut it. The timelines from meetings and conversations between Warner Bros and the BBC show the varying responses. By all accounts, Warner Bros were furious. Meanwhile, the BBC have dragged their feet and failed to respond adequately.

The fact the ceremony is still not available on iPlayer says it all: a night that should have celebrated the massively long-overdue appreciation of multiple marginalised communities has still not been rectified.

Featured image via screenshot

Around 50 activists from the Peter Tatchell Foundation and partner groups protested outside Westminster Abbey during the Commonwealth service. They shouted for King Charles to apologise for his predecessor monarchs imposing anti-LGBTQ+ laws on colonies across the British Empire.

Campaigners from Uganda, Bangladesh and other Commonwealth nations, gathered outside the abbey. They highlighted the fact that 29 Commonwealth countries still criminalise same-sex relationships. Nearly all of these laws derive from Britain’s colonial-era penal codes. Most former colonies retained these statutes after independence.

The LGBTQ+ campaigners from Commonwealth countries where being gay is still a crime marched to Buckingham Palace to deliver a formal letter to Charles. It urges him, as head of the Commonwealth, to uphold the Commonwealth Charter, speak out for LGBTQ+ equality and apologise for previous monarchs authorising the imposition of anti-LGBTQ+ laws on Britain’s colonies. These laws continue to cause great harm to LGBTQ+ people.

You can read the letter here.

Peter Tatchell, director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, said:

The criminalisation of LGBT+ people across most of the Commonwealth was imposed through British colonial rule and in the name of successive monarchs. These laws were exported from Westminster and embedded in penal codes in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Pacific.

An apology from the King would not interfere in the sovereignty of Commonwealth nations. It would acknowledge historical truth and be consistent with the human rights principles of the Commonwealth Charter. Decriminalisation is not Western interference – criminalisation was.

Abbey Kiwanuka, Ugandan LGBTQ+ activist from Out and Proud African LGBTI, said:

In Uganda and elsewhere, politicians often claim anti-gay laws defend ‘African values.’ But these laws were introduced by British colonial authorities. They are not indigenous traditions — they are colonial exports.

When the Head of the Commonwealth acknowledges this history, it strengthens our human rights struggle. An apology would give hope to LGBTs facing imprisonment, violence and discrimination.

Advertisement

The Peter Tatchell Foundation is urging the Commonwealth to live up to its Charter commitment to equality, human rights and dignity for all.

Featured image via The Peter Tatchell Foundation

Iran’s Assembly of Experts cast their votes and announced their election of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s successor. After much deliberation, they have chosen Mojtaba Khamenei, the second-eldest son of the former supreme leader killed in the first round of offensive US-Israeli strikes. This is no doubt a thorn in the side of the American Trump administration.

An inauguration ceremony held on 9 March during which members of the security apparatus, including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Artesh (conventional armed forces), and the Basij, all pledged their allegiance to the new head of state.

Khamenei out of the shadows

This choice of leader is about more than ‘keeping it in the family.’ Moreover, it laughs in the face of Trump for believing he could ever pull the levers of such a decision.

However, Mojtaba, a 56-year-old cleric and veteran of the Iraq-Iran war, is not the heavy-hitter his father was. He has never held an official title. He is widely known as the “man behind the curtain.”

Nevertheless, Iran’s shadow has come into full view. For years, pundits and US officials alike, long argued that Khamenei Sr. had “delegated” leadership responsibilities to Khamenei Jr. Khamenei junior is said to have been working in lockstep with IRGC and Basij commanders. In that sense, Mojtaba was the surest choice. The fatal strike on his father’s compound also killed his mother, wife, and son.

Trump’s backslide

Much to the dismay of Iran’s foes, for now, the “snake” – as they call it –  has grown a new head. Billions of dollars expended by warhawks in Washington and Tel Aviv salivating at the prospect of a rubbled Iran, and for what? All to land back on square one.

Is this the war Trump claims is going “very well”? Notwithstanding what the Republican cultish leader thinks or wants the world to think, Iran will not bow for his or anyone else’s convenience. The crowning of Mojtaba reminds those waging this unprovoked war of this fact.

It’s ultimately a one-finger salute to the Trump’s twin demands of:

More apparent than the fulfilment of either demand is the collision course America has set itself against. On the one hand, Trump has disavowed earlier calls of “regime change,” yet continues to demand the lead role in writing the next chapter of the country’s history.

While Trump has remained tight-lipped on the choice of Mojtaba, Trump-friendly US senator Lindsey Graham has said the appointment of the late Ayatollah’s son “is not the change we’re looking for” before calling him a “religious Nazi” and confirming the target placed on his back:

I believe it’s just a matter of time before he meets the same fate as that of his father — one of the most evil men on the planet.

When it comes to the future of the region and that of the Iranian people, the son of the late murderous ayatollah is not the change we’re looking for. He has lived large as the Iranian people have suffered and he’s been on the front lines of pushing hate because he too is a… https://t.co/UbBjxLmXRC

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) March 8, 2026

Regime change is not a menu item

If history has taught us anything, capitulation is what the Iranian regime has resisted for almost 50 years. Azadeh Sobout, a research fellow at Queen’s University Belfast, delivered a blistering critique of America’s cavalier attitude. She also criticised the mischaracterisation of freedom as a cannonball tearing through civilian infrastructure:

We are being sold this binary idea that we either have to choose between dictatorship or bombardment, between destruction of submission.

If regime change were a choice on the menu, the people of countries trapped in America’s forever wars would have long ago requested that for America. The point Sobout makes, by calling out the duplicitous global system, is that America does what it wants with little regard for the consequences. Also, America shows little regard for the post-WWII rules-based system. As we now see, that system exists in name only:

I believe it’s the right of self determination to the people of Iran and other people in the region that have constantly been undermined.

Freedom, as the academic added, isn’t about:

destroying the remaining infrastructure of our societal and cultural spaces.

In the famous words of Iran’s former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif:

World must stand up to US ‘bullying’, says Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif https://t.co/bojcx3MUR2 pic.twitter.com/JcbetObE1m

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 3, 2018

Advertisement

A man of the people, or the IRGC?

Back in Iran, opinions are divided over Mojtaba. In Shiraz, a major military production hub and Shi’ite seminary centre, and elsewhere, Khamenei Jr. was warmly received as Iran’s new supreme leader. Opposition has been quieter. In fact, dissent would be regarded as treason by law under war.

Mojtaba has been accused by some Iranians of suppressing anti-government protesters in January 2026, and engineering past presidential elections.

Others have cast him as the hereditary heir to Khamenei, arguing that his appointment runs counter to the tenets of the Islamic revolution of 1979.

More controversial is the IRGC-controlled business empire Mojtaba has inherited, including the state-owned Setad conglomerate – giving him control over assets valued at USD 95 billion. These include properties previously owned by dissidents stripped of their ownership rights.

His position within the IRGC network is important for the survival of Iran’s political system. At this tentative stage it is unclear whether he’ll emerge as a reformist character or toe the hardliner route. Either way, the message this broadcasts to America and the wider world is that Iran will not accept terms and conditions written in imperial blood. Only time will tell if Mojtaba can hold down the fort while the moat is on fire. More importantly, only time will tell if he can survive leadership decapitation.

What Mojtaba is unlikely to do – in the famous worlds of Khomeini, the founding father of the Islamic Republic – is to drink from the poisoned chalice. America is looking increasingly trapped in a long engagement, given surrender is not on the cards for Iran.

Featured image via the Canary

1) Listen to and validate their concerns

2) Think about the news they’re exposed to

3) Tackle misinformation head-on

4) Consider placing limits on your news consumption

5) Use age-appropriate language and tailor chats to your child

A panicked Donald Trump has called for an end to the Republican Party’s Texas primary after a left-wing Christian pastor who opposes Israel won a stunning victory in the Democratic primary.

Not in your name

James Talarico, is the honourable pastor and state senator, who beat Israel lobby-backed Jasmine Crockett in the 4 March primary. He believes strongly that Jesus would be tipping over tables in protest against racist Christian nationalism.

The results sent Trump into a tailspin, leading him to demand that Republican candidates drop out of the primary battle so he could nominate his preferred pick to fight the ‘radical left’ opponent. The move has infuriated members of the Republican camp.

Tanking Trump

The demand, as we can surmise, shows that Trump knows how badly he’s tanking in the polls. The Democrats haven’t won in Texas since 1988, but he fears they might now. However, Trump was out of luck. The candidates rejected his demand, and two contenders are still fighting tooth and nail for the top spot.

Featured image via the Canary 

Chancellor Rachel Reeves joined a virtual meeting with G7 finance ministers to discuss the situation in the Middle East (Alamy)

3 min read1 hr

Reeves gave a statement to the House of Commons after meeting with G7 finance ministers on Monday afternoon, as part of wider efforts to coordinate an international economic response to the Iran conflict’s impact on global energy security and markets.

The Chancellor said that in the meeting, she emphasised the need for “immediate de-escalation” of the conflict and a return to the diplomatic process. 

She sought to reassure the public as the UK braces for further energy price shocks and market volatility. Oil prices have spiked in the Middle East, and oil shipping routes have been disrupted as the conflict between Iran, the US and Israel continues.

“I know that families and businesses will be concerned about the impact of this conflict on them,” Reeves said, before confirming that the UK is ready to support a coordinated release of collective International Energy Agency oil reserves.

Reeves said she has explicitly asked the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to be vigilant across energy prices, including essentials like road fuel and heating oil, stressing she will “not tolerate any company exploiting the current crisis to make excess benefits at consumers’ expense”.

The move is intended to reassure motorists and households that the government is monitoring supply‑chain pricing and looking to prevent opportunistic price gouging at a time of heightened energy insecurity.

The Chancellor also announced that the Treasury has approved Ministry of Defence (MoD) access to the Treasury’s special reserve to fund additional military capabilities in the Middle East.

She said this would ensure that “no net additional costs of these operations will be funded by the MoD, but instead will be funded by the Treasury”.

Reeves said the UK will also play its part as the global hub of maritime insurance, and is due to meet with the chair of Lloyds of London later on Monday to discuss how to support the continued passage of maritime trade.

Highlighting the importance of boosting domestic energy resilience, Reeves confirmed that the government will publish its response “in the coming days” to the Fingleton review of nuclear regulation, a key step she said will help “build nuclear power more quickly”.

Reeves said inflation was likely to rise in the coming months, but financial markets were continuing to function normally. In response to her statement, Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said: “These are very serious and concerning times, and the developments in the Middle East are already having profound consequences for our economy.

“Oil prices have surged above $100 a barrel for the first time since the 2022 energy crisis. That alone is enough to have huge knock-on effects for households and businesses.”

He accused the government of making the economy “weaker” and pointed out that inflation remains elevated.

“That is far from ideal, given the threat of a significant further spike in energy prices,” he continued.

“And of course, extraordinarily, the Chancellor has just now reconfirmed that the government will press ahead with a rise in fuel duty later this year, and borrowing is running higher than was forecast when the government took office.”

The number of people in hardship who are having to pay for private dentists has almost doubled in two years, according to new research by Healthwatch England.

A survey commissioned by the independent health watchdog found 27% of people who described themselves as ‘struggling financially’ had used a private dentist in 2025 compared to 14% in 2023.

A lack of dentists offering NHS appointments, particularly in more deprived areas, and there being no guaranteed right to care from an NHS dentist are fueling the rise in people going private.

Rebecca Curtayne, acting head of policy, public affairs and research at Healthwatch England, said:

Our findings are a warning that for some people, there’s only one tier dental care — private. And it’s the most vulnerable people in our society who bear the brunt of the ongoing shortage of NHS dental appointments.

The government won’t end health inequalities until it fixes NHS dentistry. Too many people on low incomes are being forced into private care they struggle to afford, or are going without treatment altogether. The system is failing those who need it most.

Use of private dentists up since 2023

People living in deprived areas who can’t find an NHS dentist, and feel they have no choice but to pay for private dental care, are potentially penalised twice, the report highlights.

They must pay significantly more for the same treatment, up to £75 for a routine examination that costs £27.40 via the NHS, and patients who are exempt from NHS dental charges, such as pregnant people, will lose the benefit of the exemption.

The data is from Healthwatch’s upcoming report, The public’s perspective: The state of health and social care, and based on a poll of nearly 2,600 adults in England last year.

It shows the number of adults who have sought private dentistry increased by 10 percentage points to almost a third (32%).

Between 2023 and 2025, the share of people who consider themselves ‘financially comfortable’ who reported using private dentistry also rose from 30% to 36%.

Financially comfortable households are still more likely to use private care, but the gap between the two groups has narrowed sharply.

Curtayne continued:

It’s positive to see that public’s confidence in NHS dentistry has increased slightly. The government needs to build on this, by improving access to NHS dentistry especially in rural and more deprived areas, and setting out its plans for fundamental reform of the NHS dental contract.

These plans should aim to give everyone the right to a permanent NHS dentist, in the same way people get a local NHS GP care who is there for both new and urgent problems.

Healthwatch England is calling for the government to introduce a legal right for people to register with an NHS dentist for life, similarly to their GP, and to review NHS dental charges amongst other reforms to help improve access to dental care.

Featured image via Pixabay

Sky News reported that Queen Camilla has met with courageous Gisèle Pelicot and was apparently left “speechless” after reading the memoir penned by the French rape survivor. Pelicot had been touring the UK to promote her book ‘Hymn to Life: Shame Has To Change Sides’ at the time and joined Camilla at Clarence House. Pelicot has received widespread support and respect for her courage in exposing the extensive, sinister abuse she endured at the hands of her husband and his sick pals.

Her case made shockwaves across the world as victims and survivors of sexual abuse drew strength from her bravery. Pelicot waived her anonymity at the time of trial so that the offences and those involved would become public knowledge. Like the title of her book, she intends to ensure that shame is felt by the abusers and not their victims.

Camilla and hypocrisy

However, the hypocrisy at play is difficult to ignore. Camilla has made little effort to centre the victims connected to the so-called Epstein files or to address the role powerful men played in perpetrating such traumatic abuse against young girls and women. Perhaps she will draw inspiration from the courage of Gisèle Pelicot and begin speaking truth to powerful men while prioritising the suffering of their victims.

After all, both cases involve networks of men who believed they had the right to do whatever they wanted to their victims. The case draws clear parallels with the thousands of pages connected to the Epstein network of elites, which included her brother-in-law, the disgraced former prince Andrew.

On the other hand, she will likely just continue prioritising the comfort of those powerful men whilst being careful to maintain public appearances.

NEW: After the years of work Queen Camilla has carried out for victims and survivors of domestic abuse, today she met the brave Madame Gisèle Pelicot.
Her husband is serving 20 years for drugging and raping her with other men.
Camilla has previously written to Gisèle to express… pic.twitter.com/HRpPRCAhx3

— Chris Ship (@chrisshipitv) February 23, 2026

Parallels between Pelicot’s case and the Epstein Files

The optics here are, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, a sucker punch to victims and survivors of the sinister web of sexual abuse and rape linked to Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump and their associates. The extraordinary bravery of Gisèle Pelicot led to 50 men being convicted of rape or sexual offences, exposing a horrifying network in which her husband repeatedly drugged her unconscious and allowed other men to assault her.

The so-called ‘Epstein files’ similarly revealed a web of powerful men exploiting women and girls to satisfy their own fantasies. At the same time, the abuse appears to have served as a double-edged weapon: by creating compromising situations and images involving influential figures, those involved could wield power on a far more lucrative and political scale.

We have written extensively on the revelations borne from the release of the Epstein Files.

Speaking about the Royal Family’s failure to recognise victims of abuse in connection to Epstein and arrogant paedo-prince Andrew, the Canary wrote:

Undoubtedly, the Royal Family feel discomfort around this issue. But that discomfort pales in comparison to the serious trauma experienced by victims of sexual abuse. Shamefully, the monarchy deepens that trauma by showing palpable disinterest in the harm powerful men cause.

Another reminder that they will never be on our side.

Gisele Pelicot, who has been internationally hailed after testifying against her husband and dozens of other men who raped her, has been awarded France’s top civic honour https://t.co/mkE2QdN6YD pic.twitter.com/l44Esx1RFN

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) July 13, 2025

Advertisement

Stop pretending you care and ACTUALLY do something

Powerful white women have much to answer for in British society. If they prioritised solidarity with victims over solidarity with the powerful, we would make far greater progress in holding those men accountable for the harm they have inflicted.

Sexual fantasies should never take precedence over the victims who must live with that trauma for the rest of their lives. Gisèle Pelicot’s advocacy and determination cannot have been easy; women who have suffered such violations rarely find it easy to expose that depth of pain. Nevertheless, she has spoken out to raise awareness about the disturbing realities of abuse and to show how even those we trust most can commit some of the worst assaults.

Therefore, this should have been an opportunity for Camilla to raise the need for thorough investigations into powerful men in the UK, who sit in positions of trust and responsibility. Instead, she has continued to look away, just like the rest of the royal family, when the call is very much coming from inside the house.

Until the royals actually engage with the implications of the Epstein files for Andrew’s behaviour, it’s hard to take platitudes from them about violence against women remotely seriously.

Featured image via the Canary