Cllr Craig Smith is the Deputy Chairman of the Leicestershire Conservatives Area Executive and a councillor for Coalville North Division on Leicestershire County Council.

As someone who uses social media daily, perhaps more accurately, hourly, for both professional and political purposes, you might argue that I am a fine one to talk.

Social media is now embedded in modern politics. For councillors, MPs and campaigners alike, it has become an essential tool. Used responsibly, it allows elected representatives to communicate directly with residents, explain decisions, counter misinformation, share updates and remain visible between elections. In local government, especially where turnout is low and engagement can be difficult, social media can strengthen accountability and trust.

But it is also a double-edged sword.

One poorly chosen phrase, one comment taken out of context, or one lapse in judgement can spread rapidly and live on indefinitely. Screenshots do not disappear. Nor does the reputational damage that can follow. Any elected representative who uses social media regularly understands that risk.

Yet beyond the danger of accidental missteps, there is a more troubling trend emerging, one that poses a serious challenge to the standards and purpose of public office itself.

Across the political spectrum, a small but growing number of individuals are using social media not to represent, inform or engage, but to provoke. They post deliberately inflammatory content, dismiss serious issues with contempt, or make statements designed to outrage rather than contribute. This behaviour is not spontaneous. It is calculated.

What has changed in recent years is the incentive structure. In the past, such behaviour was often about notoriety, chasing attention, relevance, or the thrill of controversy. Today, it is increasingly about money. Many social media platforms now allow accounts to be monetised. Engagement equals income. Likes, shares, comments and reactions all feed an algorithm that rewards outrage far more generously than nuance. Calm explanation does not travel as far as provocation. Division generates clicks. Anger pays.

For private individuals, this may be distasteful but largely self-contained. For elected officials, it is profoundly corrosive.

Councillors and MPs are not paid to generate engagement. They are paid by the taxpayer to represent communities, to attend meetings, to scrutinise decisions, to work with officers, to handle casework and to solve real problems. Their role is grounded in service, not performance.

Yet when an elected representative becomes more invested in posting daily rage-bait than in carrying out the duties of office, the line between public service and personal profit begins to blur.

This is not about free speech. Elected officials are entitled to hold strong views, express unpopular opinions and challenge orthodoxies. Robust debate is healthy in a democracy. But there is a clear distinction between principled disagreement and deliberately provocative content designed solely to inflame emotions and drive engagement.

The issue becomes even more troubling when those posts target vulnerable groups, trivialise serious matters, or dismiss lived experiences, not as part of a reasoned argument, but as a repeated tactic to provoke reaction. When this behaviour becomes routine, it raises legitimate questions about priorities.

Is the primary focus representation, or revenue?

Local government already faces a crisis of trust. Turnout in local elections remains stubbornly low. Many residents feel disconnected from councils and cynical about politics at a local level. When councillors appear more interested in building personal online brands than in addressing potholes, planning disputes or social care pressures, that cynicism deepens.

Worse still, the accountability mechanisms are weak.

You cannot sack an elected councillor for neglecting their duties in favour of monetised social media activity. Codes of conduct are narrow, slow-moving and often ill-suited to dealing with behaviour that is provocative but technically permissible. Party discipline can be applied only to members of the same party, and even then, it is blunt and politically sensitive.

Until the next election, an elected representative is largely free to continue treating public office as a platform for outrage, regardless of the damage done to public discourse or community cohesion.

This creates a perverse incentive. The most extreme voices receive the most attention. Sensible councillors doing unglamorous but vital work rarely go viral. Meanwhile, those willing to say the most shocking thing possible are rewarded with clicks, followers and, increasingly, cash. The result is a distortion of local political debate. Serious issues are drowned out by provocation. Nuanced policy discussions are replaced by culture-war soundbites. Council chambers become secondary to comment sections.

This is not merely a question of tone. It is about the purpose of public office.

If local government becomes a stepping stone to monetised outrage, rather than a vehicle for service and delivery, it risks losing credibility altogether. Residents rightly expect that the people they elect will focus on local priorities, not on feeding an algorithm.

There is also a wider reputational cost. When a handful of councillors behave this way, it reflects poorly on local government as a whole. The vast majority of councillors, across all parties, work hard, unpaid or modestly paid, juggling employment, family life and public service. Their efforts are undermined when public perception is shaped by the loudest and most extreme voices.

Conservatives, in particular, should be concerned about this trend.

Local government has long been one of the party’s strengths: practical problem-solving, fiscal responsibility, community leadership. That tradition is incompatible with treating public office as a side hustle built on outrage.

If we believe in responsibility, service and accountability, then we must be willing to call out behaviour that corrodes those values, even when it is technically permissible, legally protected or politically inconvenient.

None of this requires new laws or heavy-handed regulation. But it does require a cultural shift. Parties, associations and local leaders need to be clearer about expectations. Voters need to ask harder questions about what their representatives actually do between elections. And elected officials themselves need to reflect on whether their online conduct serves their community or merely themselves.

Social media is here to stay. Used well, it can strengthen democracy. Used cynically, it can cheapen it.

Public office should never be reduced to a revenue stream fuelled by division. Those elected to serve should remember a simple truth: their salary comes from the public purse, and their mandate comes from the people they represent, not from an algorithm that rewards outrage.

David Willetts was Minister for Universities and Science 2010-2014 and is a member of the House of Lords.

Many areas of British public policy are subject to wild oscillations and turbulence. Funding higher education is much more stable. For the past twenty years all three political parties, faced with difficult decisions about how to pay for it, have opted for broadly the same model. But as we are seeing again now that does not mean the system is accepted let alone actually welcomed.

Is there a better way?

Graduates do earn more on average than non-graduates. So it is reasonable to expect them to pay back for the cost of their higher education. The repayments, at the rate of 9 per cent, depend on your income and only start above a threshold which for many graduates now stands at £28,470. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has some useful illustrations of what that means.

“Someone earning £35,000 a year pays back £49 per month, 1.6 per cent of their gross earnings. This rises to £161 a month (3.9 per cent) for someone earning £50,000 and £311 a month (5.3 per cent) for someone earning £70,000.”

My focus as minister for universities was to try to hold down the monthly payments which is why we increased the repayment threshold to £21,000 from the level we inherited from Labour. But we were also expecting people to pay back more in total during their working lives.

The burden of graduate “debt” is now a highly charged political issue.

The volume of the debt is a genuine source of concern to many graduates, even though it is not like a commercial loan or a mortgage. (Indeed because it is not a commercial debt with an obligation to pay back whatever your circumstances mortgage lenders look not at the debt but at the repayment as part of fixed out-goings.)

However the debt has turned out much higher than we planned fifteen years ago because of the subsequent decision in 2016 to convert all maintenance grants into loans, adding to the debt. There were also concerns that people needed help on masters courses so loans were extended to them. There was then the burst of high inflation which put up the debt as well especially for graduates earning over about £52,000 for whom there is an interest rate of RPI plus 3 per cent.

The interest rate has always been the issue which arises most unhappiness.

The last big review of higher education funding by Philip Augar proposed there should be a cap of 120 per cent on the total amount of debt. That should now be implemented. There are other attractive proposals as well. Uprating the amount due by CPI not RPI. After setting the higher repayment threshold the Coalition also said it should increase with earnings and that pledge has not always been honoured – indeed it is the latest freeze to the threshold which has inflamed such controversy.

Meanwhile where is the Conservative Party in all this?

The Conservative Party is not obliged to have a position on every part of Government policy. One of the luxuries of opposition is to have some capacity to choose the ground on which to fight. But there is a clear undercurrent of hostility to universities and a belief that too many go. Somehow the growth of higher education is attributed to Tony Blair’s 50 per cent target. But I’ve never met a student who says they went to university because he required them to go and Conservative Governments quite rightly did not set such targets.

The growth of higher education – here and around the world – is the result of choices of young people.

But these student choices need to be well-informed. That is why I fought long and hard to get much better more granular data on labour market outcomes course by course.

Some courses do appear to offer poor economic returns though that involves taking data for some years after graduation and turning it into a forecast of lifetime earnings. And there are other returns to higher education – such as better health including more resilience on mental health – which are not all caught by pay. Nevertheless there needs to be tough intervention from the Office for Students when universities appear to be performing badly. However if the state takes the draconian state of closing down specific courses, we cannot assume that these students will automatically sign on for apprenticeships, even if they are available. They may instead wish to study something else somewhere else.

Conservatives used to be more comfortable with people going to university, seeing it as a route to a decent job. Young people can’t take that for granted now, if they every could. But nor is it hopeless. Between the ages of 23 and 31 earnings grow by 72 per cent for graduates more than double the 31 per cent for non-graduates. For graduates who were on free school meals at school their average earnings growth in those crucial starter years in the jobs market is 75 per cent whereas for non-graduates it is 26 per cent. This may be one of the reasons polling shows 87 per cent of graduates do not regret going to university.

Graduates are also much more likely to be in work – so just comparing the earnings of those in work misses out one of the key benefits. 15 years after school-leaving age just 2 per cent. of graduates are on out-of-work benefits compared with 11 per cent of non-graduates.

Given that the party is keen on work as a route out of poverty and a vehicle for social mobility it seems odd that there is not more embrace of what is still the most powerful route we have to achieve that core Tory ambition.

Saqib Bhatti MP is Shadow Education Minister.  

For years now, anyone who dares to defend the result of the 2016 referendum is met with the same weary refrain: “Brexit made Britain 4 per cent poorer.” It is a claim repeated so often that you would be forgiven for taking it as settled fact. It isn’t.

However, as a beleaguered Keir Starmer looks for ways of shoring up his position and entertaining the ideas of closer and dynamic alignment, we should brace ourselves for Labour Minister after Labour Minister repeating this relentlessly and without mercy.

In truth, the famous “4 per cent GDP hit” is not a measured loss, not an observed collapse, and not proof that Britain “wrecked” its economy by voting Leave. It is a model-based projection — one of several — based on assumptions about what might happen to productivity over the long term. And like any model it can be manipulated.

The “4 per cent poorer” argument depends entirely on a fictional version of Britain — one that stayed in the EU, avoided every global shock, and followed a perfectly smooth pre-2016 trend forever.

That Britain never existed.

If Brexit had truly wiped 4 per cent off the economy, we would expect to see an obvious and permanent collapse in output. That never happened. Britain’s economy didn’t fall off a cliff as was repeated on steroids during the referendum.

UK GDP continued to grow after 2016. Growth slowed at times, but it remained positive across much of the post-referendum period. Even today, official figures from the Office for National Statistics show the economy still expanding, albeit slowly under this anti-business and pro-trade union Chancellor.

That is not what a 4 per cent “loss” looks like. It isn’t real.

What is real is that Britain has shown immense strength and resilience. Since 2016, the UK, like every other major economy, the United Kingdom has been hit by numerous major shocks that have done serious damage to the global economy.

The COVID pandemic effectively brought economies to a halt, forcing governments to spend billions subsidising industries that couldn’t keep going. This, once in a lifetime pandemic, led to a collapse in the global supply chain that and hurt economies across the world. In fact, being out of the European Union helped us deal with the pandemic and get our economy back up and running. It was precisely because we were out of the European Union that we had the fastest vaccine rollout in the world and in Europe. This was despite Starmer protesting at the time that we should follow the European Medical Health Agency. That would have meant longer lockdowns and lower GDP.

Coupled with this, we saw major war in Europe for the first time since 1945. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine caused global instability and saw a surge in the cost of energy. This has pushed up bills for families and businesses which has done nothing for economic growth.

Germany has suffered recession. France has stagnated and President Macron can’t even pass a budget. The idea that Britain’s performance exists in a vacuum is simply false. In fact, The UK economy has outgrown Japan, Germany, Italy and France since 2016. The only thing that has threatened that has been Rachel Reeves and thi

If Brexit had been uniquely catastrophic, Britain would stand out dramatically from comparable economies. It doesn’t.

Now of course, when you have huge constitutional change as we did when we left the European Union there may well have been some short-term cost. But any common-sense analysis of the facts will show it isn’t the 4% drop in GDP that is oft repeated. It is just as likely to be negligible and more likely to be a net positive impact in the long-term. That depends on us. Our future is in our hands.

Brexit reshaped Britain’s trading relationships. It created challenges and opportunities. Reasonable people can debate whether it was the right choice, but pretending that Brexit definitively “destroyed” 4 per cent of GDP is not economics, it’s politics.

Now Keir Starmer’s back is against the wall, pursuing dynamic alignment where the UK ends up being a rule-taker and paying for the privilege is a foolhardy way of buying off his backbenchers. Unfortunately, it won’t work and will leave the UK in a worse off position with unelected bureaucrats once again dictating to us how we should live our lives. No wonder the EU economy commissioner has said this month that the European bloc is ready to engage with “an open mind” when asked about a customs union.

In this context, Keir Starmer’s attacks on Brexit and its impact on the economy are as predictable as they are risible. If we want an honest national conversation about growth, productivity, and our place in the world we must not let Labour politicians use recycled myths to scare the British public into a new settlement with the European Union.

The British public deserve better than that.

Keir Starmer has denied knowing that the shady ‘Labour Together’ sabotage outfit that put him into Labour’s top seat was spying on journalists. But his office and front bench were knee-deep in it. And the details keep coming out.

Labour Together goes after Murdoch hacks

Labour Together’s spying on journalists has been public knowledge for months. But those were independent, left-wing journalists and authors. So none of the ‘mainstream’ media or political establishment cared much. But now it’s public that it was using the same PR firm to dig — and allegedly make up-dirt on two hacks working for press baron Rupert Murdoch. So it’s suddenly ‘become’ a scandal.

So far, so predictable. But as more information comes out, Starmer’s denials look increasingly hollow. We already know that his disgraced, recently-resigned chief of staff Morgan McSweeney ran Labour Together for much of the critical period. We know also know that his cabinet minister Steve Reed was involved up to the elbows. So was Reed’s fellow cabinet minister Lisa Nandy. And Josh Simons, now a Starmer front-bencher, ordered the £30k spying campaign.

But yet another tight-link to Starmer has come out.

Courting APCO

In September 2025, Starmer’s strategy director Paul Ovenden was forced to resign after his obscene messages leaked to the hard-right media.

And in breaking news, we now know that Ovenden’s wife, Kate Forrester, was Director of APCO Worldwide — the firm Labour Together hired to spy on and smear two Sunday Times journalists who were investigating its “slush funds and secret donations”.

BREAKING: Kate Forrester, wife of Keir Starmer’s disgraced ex-Director of Strategy Paul Ovenden, was Director of APCO Worldwide — the private investigator hired by Labour Together ‘think tank’ to trash Sunday Times journalists who exposed its slush funds and secret donations. https://t.co/66UfdYm5rx pic.twitter.com/A7YGCPYCIj

— Joe Rich (@joerichlaw) February 16, 2026

If Succession or Billions came up with this kind of psycho-drama plot, people would say it was too far-fetched. In Keir Starmer’s ‘Labour’, reality is too wild for fiction.

Featured image via the Canary

“We want are country back” may be the regular refrain of the British far right, but it seems their candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election in Manchester, Matthew Goodwin, isn’t afraid of a bit of foreign cash.

Or a lot of foreign cash.

British far-right, courts Hungarian far-right

According to a new exposé by the Goodlaw Project, Goodwin has been taking as much as ten grand a month from a Hungarian far right institution that serves as a propaganda machine for fascist Hungarian premier Viktor Orbán.

Even worse, from a British ‘fash’ point of view, it’s not even ten grand in ‘fine English pounds’ — but 10,000 euros. The horror.

Of course, the UK far right is no stranger to a bit of hypocrisy, either. Just ask the various child abusers behind the ‘grooming gang’ moral panic – or the immigrant-smugglers protesting outside asylum-seeker hotels. But they don’t like being outed and put on the spot about it.

Poaching wealthy donors

Goodwin’s not the only one taking wads from Hungary’s so-called ‘Mathias Corvinus Collegium’ (MCC). MCC has been ladling moolah onto the British far-right, but Mr G seems to have been a leading beneficiary.

Some residents of Gorton and Denton may not have been put off voting Reform by Goodwin being a posh southern academic who wants girls to get pregnant younger. But they might just be put off by him taking cash from Johnny foreigner.

In Euros, to boot, Goodwin’s cashflow speaks volumes.

Featured image via the Canary

On 12 February, the government announced that it will soon publish guidance for schools regarding trans pupils. The press release states that schools must take a “very careful approach” when a pupil “asks to socially transition”.

‘Social transition’ refers to the non-medical aspects of transitioning. It can include changing one’s name, wearing different clothes, and using different pronouns.

The press release goes on to state that:

It clearly sets out that single sex spaces must be protected. Without exception, no child should be made to feel unsafe through inappropriate mixed sex sport, and there should be no sharing of school and college toilet facilities over eight years old or mixed sex sleeping arrangements on trips.

It is also vital that schools and teachers are aware of any child’s birth sex to be able to take appropriate action where needed, so the guidance will also make clear that this must be accurately recorded in school and college records.

Advertisement

Single sex spaces “must be protected” — with the ‘from trans kids’ left implicit. No child should be made to feel unsafe — with the ‘no cis child’ unsaid but clearly in mind. These statements frame trans children as a threat, and as potential deceivers.

Even the framing of “asking” to transition socially implies that it’s not utterly ridiculous for a school to refuse to use a pupil’s chosen name and pronouns. But then, that’s the level that the UK has sunk to. Any aspect of transness is now considered a legitimate topic for debate.

‘Political football’

Joining in on the game of political football that is trans existence, education secretary Bridget Phillipson said:

Parents send their children to school and college trusting that they’ll be protected. Teachers work tirelessly to keep them safe. That’s not negotiable, and it’s not a political football.

That’s why we’re following the evidence, including Dr Hilary Cass’s expert review, to give teachers the clarity they need to ensure the safeguarding and wellbeing of gender questioning children and young people.

Advertisement

Likewise, the draft guidance itself also states repeatedly that it is supported by Dr Hilary Cass. Cass wrote the Cass report, which was filled with spurious abuses of science in the name of denying healthcare to trans children.

The press release stated that the draft guidance was:

Backed by Baroness Cass, whose review warned that strong evidence about the impact of social transition remains limited, the guidance says children’s wellbeing and safeguarding must be at the centre of every decision and schools cannot take a one size fits all approach.

Cass was completely inexperienced with trans healthcare before she was chosen to write her review. However, she was at least a medical doctor. By contrast, her expertise regarding social transition – which has nothing to do with gender medicine – is less than worthless. It follows that Labour set so much store by her opinion.

‘Losing any hope’

Meanwhile, experts and campaigners who are actually invested in the wellbeing of trans youth have condemned the draft guidance.

Cal Horton, a researcher specialising in trans youth, stated that:

Trans children need to be supported and respected in order to be safe at school, in order to access their right to education, in order to enjoy their childhood.

Instead, we are seeing a complete ban on access to appropriate toilets, PE, accommodation on school trips, a complete erosion of their rights.

It will lead to children avoiding the bathroom, avoiding exercise, missing out on school trips, dropping out of school, losing any hope of education, equality, friendship, happiness.

Likewise, advocacy organisation Trans Actual was scathing in its reaction:

It’s absurd for this Government’s proposed guidance to suggest that schools need to seek clinical advice if a young person wants to change their name, uniform or hairstyle.

Being trans is not a medical condition nor is it an unwanted life outcome to be guarded against, it is a healthy way that many people choose to express themselves.

All young people need safe and supportive schools yet this Government’s proposed guidance risks leading to trans young people being outed to their families against their wishes.

As it stands, this guidance does nothing to help schools to include trans pupils – nor to address the epidemic of anti-trans bullying promoted by misogynist influencers.

The guidance will not become law until September of this year. However, if this draft is anything to go by, the final document will continue Labour’s current streak of kicking trans people and calling it fair play.

At its heart, this document refuses to treat trans schoolchildren as the vulnerable minority they are, and instead figures them as an active threat to the cis majority.

Featured image via the Canary

The fallout from the Epstein files has been relentless. Those implicated in the dirty saga include UK Royals, members of our political class, the mainstream media, the “broligrachy,” and others.

Still, one area corporate media coverage has ignored is the convicted sex-trafficker’s feigned interest in polio eradication in the Global South. But why would a notorious predator and trafficker bother to involve himself with healthcare management in South Asia?

No champion of polio eradication

Among the tranche of files released by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Epstein appears in a video speaking with an off-camera interviewer whose voice resembles Steve Bannon’s. Responding to the interviewer, Epstein justifies his ties to “dirty money,” claiming to have helped with polio eradication in India and Pakistan — a convenient cover for a sex predator.

The Epstein files also include confidential reports on polio eradication efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, marked “CONFIDENTIAL — DO NOT CIRCULATE.”

The emerging pattern is one the Canary has repeatedly reported on. Epstein used his deep pockets to court Western diplomats, global philanthropists, and political figures. His alleged interest in polio work was another power grab. He was using cash to climb the ranks. It was never about vaccines.

He positioned himself in global health by feigning noble interests. The release of the DOJ files proves this was nothing more than a mask to hide his predatory depravity.

Epstein-Gates connection

The DOJ files show that the Gates Foundation was implicated in these lobbying efforts. The organisation — long at the forefront of global polio immunisation efforts — provided substantial funding for these IPI-led campaigns. An email exchange between Rod-Larsen and Epstein in September 2013 showed them discussing how to structure Gates Foundation funding for IPI’s polio work. And another email from the same year, sent by a senior program officer at the Gates Foundation, the IPI was described as well placed to:

identify potential influencers/high-level contacts that can move the work forward and recommendations for how/whether BMGF, GPEI UN partners (UNICEF/WHO) and others should engage with such contacts.

The same email chains shows Epstein committing to $1 million per year for polio programmes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Northern Nigeria, and Somalia — a whopping $15 million over five years. He instructed that Bill Gates’ name should not appear on a proposed peace center.

But by March 2015, the relationship had run its course, due to the reputational risk attached to Epstein’s criminal behaviour, and the funds Epstein promised which Gates never received.

Leveraging polio eradication for political gain

Epstein’s interest in polio projects in Pakistan was enabled through associates at the International Peace Institute (IPI), including senior staff.

Terje Rød-Larsen, its former president and ex-diplomat to Norway, is mentioned multiple times in the files. He stepped down from his role in disgrace after his ties to the convicted child-rapist made global headlines. Moreover, Rød-Larsen, as the DOJ files suggest, was a key ally of Epstein. He is currently under investigation by Norwegian police.

Rød-Larsen and IPI director, Andrea Pfanzelter, received intelligence briefings from a Pakistan-based field operative Nasra Hassan. They forwarded these reports to Epstein. The paper trail begins in April 2013. Emails from Hassan to Rød-Larsen describe meeting with Pakistani tribal leaders and government officials, and their changing position on polio eradication. Commenting on a chat had with a senior member of the Taliban, Hassan said:

It appears that religion-based refusal [of polio vaccination] is a very tiny.

However, the declassified files suggest interest in polio eradication ranked second to political ambitions. In June 2013, Hassan sent an email warning that Bill Gates’ public outreach to Pakistan’s ex-prime minister and opposition figure, Imran Khan, for polio support could jeopardise back-channel talks with the Pakistani Taliban:

This will harden the Pak[istani] Taliban’s position.

She noted that while the Taliban appeared more receptive to polio programmes, they remained opposed to Western involvement. She reminded Rød-Larsen that the group banned polio vaccinations in the Waziristan region in 2012:

alleging the campaign was a cover for espionage.

Hassan reiterated the need for discreet talks, stating that:

This opposite effect [the possibility of losing Taliban support] emphasizes the IPI position that polio related efforts by politicians MUST be discreet and low-key.

Epstein names Imran Khan a “threat”

Hassan’s warnings about Imran Khan’s public role — specifically his rejection of US imperialism — were echoed years later by Epstein himself. That’s little surprise given Epstein’s infiltration of Western diplomatic circles. He wooed politicians who cosied up to US — cue Peter Mandelson, Ehud Barak, among a long list of politicians he collected.

That’s little surprise given [stuff about Epstein’s political interference]”

Hassan’s warnings about Imran Khan’s public role were echoed years later by Epstein himself.

In 2018, as Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim noted, Epstein described Khan as “very bad news.”

Grim linked this to Khan’s political downfall, noting that the US State Department, with help from the Pakistani military, pushed him out of office in 2022.

Khan is subject to ongoing persecution by the military establishment in Pakistan. His party has been suppressed, and he remains behind bars.

Among his opponents, former Indian diplomat, Hardeep Singh Puri, now a senior BJP official in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party, also features in the DOJ files. There were email exchanges between Puri and Epstein. There were five scheduled appointments between June 2014 and January 2017. Unsurprisingly, Puri has defended himself against alleged ties to the sex predator.

Jeffrey Epstein in 2018 was claiming that @ImranKhanPTI was “really bad news,” citing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The State Dept pushed him out of office with help from the Pakistani military in 2022. pic.twitter.com/isDA4dePMj

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) November 14, 2025

Advertisement

Unanswered Questions

Despite the documentary trail exposing Epstein’s attempts to insert polio-related initiatives, by leveraging his wealth, many questions — as raised by Pakistan’s Express Tribune remain unanswered. What was Epstein’s actual role in this network? Did he have ties to intelligence agencies? And why were detailed reports on Taliban leadership and polio access appearing in his inbox?

In the words of Express Tribune reporter, Shireen Qasim:

The emails raise a fundamental question: was the polio work undertaken by operatives like Hassan genuine humanitarian effort that happened to provide access to sensitive locations and information, or was the humanitarian work itself a cover for intelligence gathering – with field reports being systematically forwarded through institutional channels to someone like Epstein who had no public health credentials?

Consider the March 2013 email from Boris Nikolic, Epstein’s science adviser, asking how to deal with violence in Nigeria and Pakistan, who could mediate with the Taliban and Boko Haram, and whether these groups might ever be open to polio eradication.

It is not a stretch to imagine that was no humanitarian angle to Epstein’s interference in South Asia. A man with no background in public health, no government position, a documented history of manipulation and blackmail, and a suspicious interest in polio eradication? Added to that, a sickeningly powerful man with the connections to manoeuvre political instability? The red flag is flaming

Featured image via the Canary