Israel’s former prime minister, Naftali Bennett has said he will declare US ally Qatar to be an “enemy state” if he succeeds in replacing current Benjamin Netanyahu this autumn.

The far-right politician also told Bloomberg he wants to start a war on Turkey. Bennett, who used to be Netanyahu’s chief of staff, clearly thinks Israel is not waging war on enough of his neighbours.

Qatar was trying, at the request of the US, to facilitate a peace deal between Israel and Hamas when Israel bombed the capital city, Doha, to try to murder the Palestinian negotiators.

Bennett has boasted of how many Palestinians he has killed, says he will never allow a Palestinian state and dismissed objections to Israel’s starvation blockade of Gaza. He appears to think Qatar trying to help bring peace is hostility.

Israel ex-PM: Every accusation is a confession

In a classic ‘every accusation is a confession’ speech, Bennett told an Israeli ‘security’ conference that Qatar is an “antisemitic cancer” that wants to destroy Israel. He added:

[Qatar is] a violent antisemitic cancer that is spreading metastases to the West and even to the office of Israel’s prime minister, with the aim of destroying the State of Israel…[and has conducted] a powerful global influence operation that may have caused Israel very major damage.

If “powerful global influence campaign” sounds familiar, Israel has massively increased its propaganda budget and boasted of running a 60,000-strong influence operation to counter outrage at its Gaza genocide.

Bennett also claimed that Qatar “directly” funded the Gaza resistance group, Hamas. In fact, Israel “approved and encouraged the transfer of Qatari funds into Gaza to prop up Hamas” as a tactic against rival Palestinian group Fatah.

Failing election campaign

Qatar dismissed Bennett’s comments as an attempt to revive a failing election campaign. Pointing to Qatar’s involvement in regional peace negotiations, an official at the country’s embassy in the US said that Bennett was:

spread[ing] disinformation about Qatar in an attempt to further his own political ambitions.

Featured image via Gil Cohen-Magen/ Pool via Reuters

By Skwawkbox

Source link

The pantomime of cruelty known as greyhound racing is slowly fading away, emitting a death rattle that matches the unpleasantness of what preceded it.

New Zealand has now banned the sport and Auckland’s Manukau Stadium held its final parade of sadism on 26 July. The country will permit no further greyhound racing after 1 August.

One supporter was finally prepared to offer some transparency into the notoriously opaque sport, telling activists who oppose the cruelty:

On Monday we’re gonna blow all our dogs away. Fuck you.

Owners of greyhounds abused for racing have been found to massacre their dogs in vast numbers, a practice known within the barbaric industry as ‘wastage’.

Edward Rennell, CEO of Greyhound Racing NZ, told reporters that the man who made the comments in this case was not actually a “licensed owner, so there were no dogs in his care”. His willingness to revel in the so-called sport’s reputation for cruelty is telling, however.

Greyhound racing vet reveals ‘barbaric’ treatment

Meanwhile in neighbouring Tasmania, a state of Australia, a vet has given extraordinary insider testimony into the horrific suffering endured by racing greyhounds.

Dr Alex Brittan is the former chief veterinary officer for Greyhound Racing New South Wales, another Australian state, located on the nation’s east coast.

Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) about his period in the role, Brittan said:

…what I learned during my time there was, on a personal level, heartbreaking. On a professional level, pretty devastating.

He continued:

Huge amounts of dogs are being produced. They’re being housed in appalling conditions. They’re raced at a frequency that is barbaric. Their injuries are, aside from a hit-by-car injury, they’re some of the most extreme and appalling injuries you can possibly imagine. The injury rates continue to go up. The death rates continue to go up.

And then once the dog has finished its athletic career, it’s supposed to be rehomed to a domestic couch. And this is something industry would have us believe is happening, but it’s not. The numbers don’t lie.

The number of dogs that aren’t rehomed are classified as backlog, and they tend to live out their lives in commercial kennels, akin to being in solitary confinement with no hope of ever being rehomed.

The ABC host asked Brittan why Tasmania doesn’t terminate the vile practice when it has the legal right to do so, and 70-75% of the population oppose the ‘sport’. Brittan’s answer was simple:

Money talks.

In yet another reminder of capitalism’s guarantee of creating concentrations of wealth and power that undermine democracy, the vet said:

Ten per cent are for it [greyhound racing]. And it’s that 10% which are leading the charge and bending the government’s desire to do what’s right for the animal and instead do what’s right for the gambling industry. The size of the gambling industry is something that flabbergasted me.

There’s $9.6 billion…[that] gets waged on greyhounds every year in Australia. It’s about a $40 billion a year churn when you take in the horses and the trots as well. So it’s a massive, massive industry.

Only Australia, England, the Republic of Ireland, the north of Ireland and the US still permit greyhound racing. Anglophone countries have a tendency to pass themselves off as a civilising force, yet often reveal themselves to be among the least civilised places on Earth.

English campaigners rally for end to greyhound cruelty

Scotland and Wales took a step away from that this year when both banned the activity within a day of each other in March. English campaigners want their government to follow and stepped up their efforts with a march on 25 July, marking 100 years since the first greyhound race.

At the march, campaigners highlighted the immense “scale of pain and suffering greyhounds have faced at the hands of the greyhound racing industry”.

Quoting figures from the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB), the governing body for greyhound racing, a statement from the League Against Cruel Sports said:

The trackside death toll has now reached 1,518 since 2017 when figures were first published, and the same figures show a shocking 38,816 injuries suffered by racing greyhounds during that period.

Large majorities supported the ban in Scotland and Wales. Polling across Britain and the north of Ireland in 2022 showed only 4% of people take an interest in the tormenting of greyhounds. Just 14% felt it important to British culture, and 81% prioritised the wellbeing of the dogs over the limited number of jobs the industry creates.

The signs of Andy Burnham being a different sort of prime minister are not promising. However, if he’s looking for low hanging fruit to signal a change of tack, a good place to start would be to ban cruel bloodsports like greyhound racing.

Featured image via the Canary

By Robert Freeman

Source link

Independent MP Adnan Hussain has demanded action from the UK government after London Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan admitted Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Khan is supported in his demand by at least nine other parliamentarians.

International law requires International Criminal Court (ICC) member states take every available action to prevent genocide. The Starmer government contorted itself shamelessly to strenuously deny the genocide. New PM Andy Burnham has shown similar evasiveness.

But Khan’s admission, coming from one of the Labour party’s most senior representatives, puts the Burnham government firmly on the legal hook. Quoting Khan’s recent speech, Hussain made the point emphatically below.

MP for Blackburn instigates letter

We, the undersigned Parliamentarians, note the recent public statement by the Mayor of London that genocide has been committed in Gaza and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bears responsibility. Whatever individual Members’ views may be, it is of profound constitutional and political significance when such a senior elected figure within the governing party publicly reaches this conclusion.

The question before the United Kingdom is no longer simply one of rhetoric, but of legal obligation.

Advertisement

The United Kingdom is a State Party to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The International Court of Justice made clear in its 2007 judgment in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro that the obligation to prevent genocide is one of conduct, not merely of reaction. A State’s duty arises when it learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide may be committed. States are not entitled to remain passive until the conclusion of lengthy judicial proceedings before taking reasonable measures within their power to prevent the crime.

If senior representatives of the governing party now believe that genocide has occurred, or that there exists compelling evidence that genocide has been or is being committed, then the United Kingdom must ensure that its actions are consistent with its obligations under international law.

Accordingly, we call upon the Government to:

• Publicly set out its legal assessment of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Genocide Convention in light of the current evidence and recent statements by senior public figures,

Advertisement

• Use every diplomatic, political and economic means reasonably available to the United Kingdom to help prevent further atrocities.

• Support all lawful international mechanisms for accountability, including proceedings before the International Court of Justice concerning allegations of genocide and the work of the International Criminal Court in investigating alleged international war crimes.

• Fully comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Rome Statute, including cooperation with any valid arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court

• Ensure that no arms exports, military cooperation or other forms of assistance expose the United Kingdom to the risk of contributing, directly or indirectly, to serious violations of international law, including genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity

Advertisement

• Review the United Kingdom’s diplomatic, economic and defence relationship with Israel to ensure that it reflects the same principles and standards that the United Kingdom has consistently applied where other states have been credibly accused of the gravest international crimes, including through economic sanctions and other restrictive measures.

This is not a question of treating one state differently from another. It is a question of applying the principles of international law consistently, irrespective of the identity of the state concerned or its allies.

The United Kingdom has long claimed to uphold a rules-based international order. That commitment has meaning only if the same legal standards are applied universally, without fear or favour. Where there exists a serious risk of genocide, the duty to prevent is engaged. Where credible allegations of international crimes are made, accountability must be pursued. Where international courts exercise lawful jurisdiction, their processes must be respected.

History will judge not only those who committed atrocities, but also those states that possessed influence and failed to use it. The United Kingdom must now demonstrate that its commitment to international law is measured by its actions as well as its words.

Advertisement

Signed

Adnan Hussain MP
Jeremy Corbyn MP
John McDonnell MP
Lord John Hendy
Ayoub Khan MP
Shockat Adam MP
Iqbal Mohammed MP
Richard Burgeon MP

Admission from London mayor

It’s not Khan’s first use of the word ‘genocide’ relating to Gaza but, perhaps stung by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani stating that he wanted Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu arrested, Khan strengthened his language.

Last week, he triggered a deranged Israel lobby meltdown by saying that no one can credibly deny Israel’s genocide:

It’s inescapable to draw the conclusion in Gaza we are seeing before our very eyes a genocide.

Hussain is absolutely right: the UK government must stop evading its legal obligations — or admit it is merely a failed-state poodle to the US and Israel.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Andy Burnham holds a National Economic Council meeting at No 10 North at Heron House in Manchester, July 24, 2026 (Christopher Furlong/Pool Photo via AP/Alamy)

3 min read6 min

Exclusive: Andy Burnham has been urged by a new group of Labour MPs to defy “orthodox economists” and invest billions in creating and sustaining one million production-based jobs in Britain.

Advertisement

The demand comes from the first policy paper of the newly launched Reindustrialisation Research Group (ReRG).

Currently counting 44 Labour MPs as members, it aims to emulate the European Research Group (ERG), which brought Eurosceptic Tories together and wielded considerable influence under the last Conservative government.

The ReRG’s inaugural research paper calls on Burnham’s government to create an additional one million jobs in production-based industries above their current level over the next decade, telling the new Prime Minister to prioritise not just the “Makerfield test” but also the “Maker-things test” to deliver a new political economy.

Advertisement

It argues that Britain’s “most vulnerable neighbourhoods are concentrated in deindustrialised areas and coastal communities” and that governments have “tried repeatedly to reverse this decline through an exclusive focus on services and the knowledge economy, but these sectors have failed to help places recover”.

“This is not just nostalgia,” the working paper argues. “Britain has badly miscalculated in giving up on physical production.”

While it briefly considers proposing the target of an absolute output for production, the idea is dismissed in favour of a jobs target, stating: “Although people want growth, whether they care about a particular absolute level of growth is questionable.”

Advertisement

The ReRG paper concedes that creating and sustaining one million production-based jobs would necessitate high levels of investment – at least a doubling of the level currently spent annually – because these have “a much higher level of capital intensity than the service sector”.

“This will require creating at least an additional £645bn of capital stock over the next decade into the production sectors of the economy,” it specifies. “This also does not include the tens of billions that will need to be invested in the workforce as well as supportive infrastructure to enable the flow of goods.”

The group is clear that the private sector would not be able to achieve this alone, concluding: “The state will have to take an active role in providing this capital through a range of measures from capital grants, subsidies and tax credits, asset and land transfers, matched investment, loan guarantees and equity investment.”

Burnham has promised to prioritise reindustrialisation in government, including as part of his “reset”. He vowed in his first key speech after winning the Makerfield by-election to “support every region to set clear and credible industrial ambitions – and provide the support to achieve them”.

Advertisement

Andy MacNae, Labour MP for Rossendale and Darwen and convenor of the ReRG, told PoliticsHome: “It’s so exciting to see the Prime Minister calling for reindustrialisation. This is how we can cut bills, improve our national security and bring back good jobs to seats like mine.

“This won’t be easy – orthodox economists are dismissive of British industry’s potential. That’s why the government must set a bold target for reindustrialisation, as our paper today suggests. Only then will the system change.”

Jonathan Brash, Labour MP for Hartlepool and a founding member of the ReRG, wrote in an op-ed last week: “We have redistributed wealth rather than creating it. We have expanded welfare while shrinking productive capacity. We have concentrated investment in already successful places while asking everyone else to be patient. It has not worked…

“We need a new political economy that makes more things, in more places, with more British workers.”

Advertisement

ReRG officers Connor Naismith and Yuan Yang were among those appointed to government by Burnham as new parliamentary private secretaries (PPSs) on Monday.

Advertisement

Source link

In June 2026, Krauatungalung Elder Djuran Bunjileenee Uncle Robbie Thorpe appealed to the Victorian Supreme Court in Australia as part of a genocide court case. The accused? King Charles III as the UK Crown representative.

It is one of a series of court cases Uncle Robbie has filed. Another is a trespassing case brought against Margaret Gardner, the governor of Victoria.

Governor’s trespass

Uncle Robbie stands in front of the Victorian Magistrates’ Court in trousers and a North Face jacket. As I step onto the curb, he holds an arm out for a hug and warns me against being mown down by cyclists. It’s the first time we have met.

He is waiting for the Victorian Governor General, King Charles III’s representative, to attend court on a charge of trespassing. Margaret Gardner had not scaled Government House’s fence; she walked in after being appointed. But the House is on land that has never been ceded.

Uncle Robbie said:

We’ve charged her with trespass and attempting to evict her from what they call Government House, which is in the Botanical Gardens.

He wants justice:

There’s a whole story around that: the Botanical Gardens was actually a former Aboriginal reserve – land for Aboriginal people. We want to get to the bottom of how that changed out of our hands and how it’s now a Government House. People should look at a thing called the Lettsam Raid of 1842 and you can see what’s happened.

Australia is still a colony

On the face of it, Australia has a Parliament, a Constitution, and a Prime Minister. But there were several colonies until they were federated in 1901.

Since Federation, the national story has been one of an independent nation. But Governor-Generals, representing the UK Crown, still have the power to dissolve state and federal parliaments and dismiss elected leaders.

There has been no Treaty signed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, despite former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s 2008 apology.

Throughout the history of Australia’s colonies and federation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were massacred, their children removed and their rights restricted. It took a 1967 national referendum to consider them humans and Australian citizens. Prior to that, they were classed as fauna. But harm continues.

In 2023, Uncle Robbie started a private prosecution case against King Charles III.

The failure of Australia’s legal system

The Magistrate’s Court of Victoria ruled that it could not prosecute the case. Why? The Australian Attorney-General has the power to veto any case prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

In February 2024, Gunnai Gunditjmarra and Djab Wurrung woman Senator Lidia Thorpe tabled amendments to Australia’s federal Criminal Code Bill to repeal the Australian Attorney-General’s veto power. The second reading was negatived in 2025.

The Magistrates’ Court told the Supreme Court of Victoria during an appeal in July 2024 that they didn’t have the necessary jurisdiction for the case. Uncle Robbie told the courts that Australia has not fully implemented the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

In February 2025, Supreme Court Justice Melinda Richards dismissed Thorpe’s judicial review application.

Justice Richards found that Victorian common law could not cover genocide and that First People’s sovereign law could not be applied by the Magistrates’ Court. While genocide is recognised in the Commonwealth of Australia’s Criminal Code, the Australian Attorney-General consent roadblock still applied.

The appeal and the case for genocide

Uncle Robbie has since appealed. He argued that the Attorney-General consent requirement is inconsistent with international law and Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act. He added that section 10 of the Act, “Rights to equality before the law”, should be read as not needing the consent.

He also argued in court that Australian sovereignty was not legitimate as settlement occurred without treaty or consent with First Nations in Australia.

He said:

Captain Cook never got consent. If you never got consent, this is an illegal occupation, and your courts and your laws are invalid.

The Victorian Attorney General’s representative Counsel for the Respondent Liam Brown SC argued that much of the appeal grounds brought up procedural concerns. Brown added that the Crown could not apply international law through Australian courts if it was not part of common law or legislated into domestic law.

Uncle Robbie was not surprised by this. He told me:

We know Australia’s unable, unwilling, and reluctant to deal with these issues. We’re talking about the most heinous of all known crimes, genocide, premeditated. Everyone knows it was an unprovoked attack on Aboriginal people. What did we do to the British to deserve that? And on that basis, it doesn’t give you authority. It doesn’t give you a right to operate. You can’t occupy our land.

Uncle Robbie also sought to add the Commonwealth Attorney-General, the United Nations Secretary General and the UK Prime Minister to the case. He requested that reports be provided from the Closing the Gap project and the Yoorook Justice Commission, alongside a report on historical records as proof of ongoing harm and genocide.

Decision reversed

On 12 June 2026, the Victorian Court of Appeal reserved its decision. Uncle Robbie is still waiting to hear back.

Now he’s turned his sights on Gardner, who did not turn up to attend court for the trespassing case. Instead, Executive Director for the Office of General Counsel Victoria and General Counsel Miriam Holmes attended in her stead.

The first Magistrate asked the lawyers to step out and discuss a schedule to reappear. After an hour in the lobby, they went back in to speak to a new magistrate.

They decided that Uncle Robbie will head back to court for the trespassing case on 20 August 2026 to see if Gardner does attend in person with a hearing set for October. That allows Uncle Robbie enough time to collate evidence from Elders and community for the case.

Taking it global

I asked Uncle Robbie what the next steps are for the genocide case. He told me the plan is to exhaust what they can do in Australia and then go to the International Courts:

It just can’t be internal courts. We know they’re totally biased. So we’re not going to get any justice from that. So that’s why we need to take it to the international court, for whatever that’s worth, and test that out.

Senator Lidia Thorpe has already emailed 21 United Nations member states on 24 June 2025, asking for help to stop and prevent ongoing genocide.

Uncle Robbie said that First Nations in Canada are already interested:

They’ll be keeping an eye on what we’re doing here. I think Australia’s very vulnerable in terms of moral, ethical, or legality here.

And if he got a ruling on genocide?

That would be an international war crimes trial.

In the meantime, he will continue the fight for Aboriginal sovereignty, one court case at a time. If only to show how Australia’s legal system fails to deliver justice for its First Peoples.

Featured image via Crime Scene Australia

By Marisa Wikramanayake

Source link

The 2026 Women’s Africa Cup of Nations (WAFCON) has kicked off in Morocco but for UK viewers, the opening round has passed without a single minute available to watch on any domestic platform.

Despite a late announcement from the CAF Women’s Champions League naming Channel 4 as the UK broadcast partner, the reality has been stark. No live listings, no on‑demand replays, and no sign of future scheduling.

For a tournament that has grown in profile, the absence of coverage has left fans confused and frustrated.

WAFCON 2026: CAF’s announcement

Two days before the opening fixtures, CAF released its global broadcast outline, stating that Channel 4 would carry the tournament in the UK. It was the first time WAFCON had been assigned a free‑to‑air partner in Britain, a move that should have marked a significant step forward for visibility. Yet when the matches began, Channel 4’s live schedule remained unchanged.

Its on‑demand catalogue showed no WAFCON content. Its sports section carried nothing related to the competition. The broadcaster’s football hub, usually updated promptly for major events, stayed silent.

The gap between CAF’s announcement and Channel 4’s output has created a situation where rights appear to exist on paper but not in practice. With the opening matches already played, the absence of any archived coverage confirms that the issue is not simply a delay in updating listings.

A familiar pattern in African football rights

This is not the first time African football tournaments have encountered inconsistencies between rights announcements and actual broadcast delivery. Deals are often finalised late, and distribution plans can shift quickly.

In some cases, rights are agreed but not activated. In others, broadcasters secure access but choose not to commit resources to full coverage. The result is a recurring uncertainty for viewers outside the continent, particularly in Europe, where WAFCON has historically struggled for visibility.

The 2026 edition has been affected by additional disruption. The tournament was postponed by more than four months, pushing it into a congested summer window. Broadcasters already committed to other events may have been reluctant to adjust schedules or allocate production capacity at short notice.

Even with rights in hand, a broadcaster can decide not to proceed if operational challenges outweigh expected audience interest.

Channel 4 silent

Channel 4 has not issued any public statement explaining the absence of WAFCON coverage. Without official clarification, the reasons can only be assessed through the available evidence. The lack of listings across all platforms suggests that Channel 4 has not built a broadcast plan for the tournament.

The absence of on‑demand content indicates that no live feed has been taken. The empty sports hub implies that WAFCON has not been integrated into the channel’s editorial schedule.

One possibility is that Channel 4 secured rights but intended to carry only highlights or digital‑only coverage. Another is that the deal was agreed in principle but not finalised in time for operational rollout. A third is that CAF’s announcement overstated Channel 4’s role, listing intended partners rather than confirmed broadcasters.

Without confirmation from either side, the exact cause remains unclear.

Impact on fans and WAFCON

For UK viewers, the blackout has been immediate and total. Fans hoping to follow the opening matches have had no legal domestic option. Those attempting to access streams from African broadcasters have encountered geo‑blocking or inconsistent availability.

The lack of coverage also affects media visibility. Without a UK broadcast partner, match footage is harder to source, limiting reporting and analysis.

For the tournament, the absence of UK coverage is a missed opportunity. WAFCON has produced some of the most compelling stories in women’s football in recent years, and the 2026 edition features several players familiar to British audiences. Without broadcast access, those narratives struggle to reach a wider audience.

Can it be fixed?

With the tournament already underway, the likelihood of a late UK broadcast activation diminishes with each passing matchday. Unless Channel 4 or another broadcaster steps in quickly, WAFCON 2026 will continue without a UK platform.

The situation highlights a broader issue. African women’s football remains vulnerable to last‑minute rights decisions and inconsistent international distribution.

For now, the reality is simple. The matches have started. The goals have been scored. Yet in the UK, WAFCON 2026 is nowhere to be seen.

Featured image via Her Football Hub

By Faz Ali

Source link

Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua remain the two biggest names in British boxing, and talk of finally staging their long‑anticipated fight has resurfaced once again.

The matchup has been discussed, negotiated, collapsed and revived multiple times over the past few years, but momentum is building behind a fresh proposal that could bring the pair together in the ring at last.

Both fighters have repeatedly said they want the fight. Promoters have indicated renewed interest. Broadcasters are open to it. Right now with the heavyweight landscape shifting again, the timing may finally be right.

Fury vs Joshua: Where talks currently stand

Discussions between the camps have restarted, with both sides publicly acknowledging that negotiations are active. No contract has been signed and no date or venue has been confirmed, but the framework being explored is similar to previous attempts: a major stadium event, a joint broadcast arrangement, and a financial package befitting two of the sport’s biggest earners.

Fury has been vocal about wanting the fight sooner rather than later. Joshua, fresh off a run of activity designed to rebuild momentum, has also stated he is ready to agree terms if the offer is right.

The sticking points remain familiar: the purse split, broadcaster alignment, and the order of any rematch clause. This time there is optimism that the gap between the two sides is smaller than in past negotiations.

Why the fight matters now

The heavyweight division is in flux. Titles have changed hands, contenders have risen, and both Fury and Joshua are looking to secure defining victories in the final phase of their careers. A fight between them would settle a debate that has dominated British boxing for nearly a decade: who is the premier heavyweight of their era?

Joshua’s recent run has rebuilt confidence after earlier setbacks. Fury, despite periods of inactivity, remains one of the sport’s most recognisable champions. Bringing them together now would deliver a fight with global reach, commercial weight and genuine competitive intrigue.

Potential venues

Several locations are under consideration. Wembley Stadium remains the leading UK option, capable of hosting more than 90,000 fans and delivering the kind of atmosphere the fight demands. Cardiff’s Principality Stadium is another domestic possibility, particularly for winter dates due to its roof.

International venues have also been discussed. Saudi Arabia has hosted multiple heavyweight events in recent years and remains a strong contender given its financial capacity and interest in staging major fights. The United States is less likely but not impossible, depending on broadcast arrangements.

Any Fury–Joshua fight requires cooperation between major broadcasters. Previous negotiations involved joint pay‑per‑view models and shared production responsibilities. Similar arrangements would be needed again, with both fighters tied to significant broadcast deals.

Financially, the fight is expected to be one of the most lucrative in modern boxing. Gate revenue, global pay‑per‑view sales, sponsorship and international rights would combine to create a package that rivals the biggest heavyweight events of the last decade. The purse split remains a key negotiation point, but both sides understand the scale of the opportunity.

What they Fury and Joshua bring

Fury’s size, awkward style and ring IQ have defined his career. His ability to switch stance, control distance and disrupt rhythm makes him one of the most difficult heavyweights to face.

Joshua, meanwhile, brings power, athleticism and a more structured approach. His recent performances have shown sharper combinations and improved confidence.

Stylistically, the fight offers a clear contrast: Fury’s unpredictability against Joshua’s precision. It is a matchup that has been analysed for years, and one that still carries genuine tactical interest

Timeline

There is no confirmed timeline, but both camps have indicated they want progress made quickly. Negotiations will continue over the coming weeks with the date, venue and financial terms needing to be finalised before any announcement.

If an agreement is reached, the fight would likely land in late 2026 or early 2027, depending on stadium availability and broadcast scheduling. Training camps, promotional tours and media commitments would follow.

Next steps

The proposed Fury–Joshua fight is not yet signed, but discussions are active and the appetite from both fighters, promoters and broadcasters is clear. It remains the biggest event available in heavyweight boxing, and the renewed push to make it happen has brought cautious optimism that the long‑awaited showdown could finally be agreed.

Featured image via Sky Sports

By Faz Ali

Source link

The public argument about electric vehicles has settled into two entrenched positions, neither of which is especially interested in detail. One holds that electrification solves road transport’s environmental problem. The other holds that it is an expensive imposition on ordinary drivers. Both skip past a set of genuinely difficult questions about weight, particulate pollution and who actually bears the cost of the transition, and those questions are becoming harder to avoid as the fleet turns over.

Weight Is the Problem Underneath Several Others

An electric car is substantially heavier than an equivalent petrol one, because batteries are heavy and the range consumers expect requires a lot of them. That additional mass has consequences beyond efficiency. It increases the energy involved in a collision, which matters for pedestrians and for occupants of lighter vehicles. It accelerates wear on road surfaces already in poor condition. And it bears down on the components that connect the car to the road, which is why manufacturers developing electric vehicle tyres have had to reinforce construction and raise load ratings rather than simply fitting whatever the petrol version used. None of this makes electrification wrong. It does mean the environmental accounting is more complicated than the tailpipe comparison suggests.

Exhaust Emissions Are Not All Emissions

The strongest argument for electric vehicles is genuine: removing tailpipe emissions from urban areas improves air quality measurably, and the health benefits of that are real and unequally distributed in favour of the communities living beside busy roads, who have borne the worst of it for decades. What electrification does not address is non-exhaust particulate matter from tyre and road surface wear, which is unregulated, rises with vehicle weight, and now represents a growing share of transport-related particulates as exhaust emissions have fallen. Regenerative braking helps considerably with brake dust. Nothing currently helps with tyre wear.

The Affordability Question Is Not Rhetorical

There is a class dimension to this transition that receives less attention than it deserves. New electric vehicles remain more expensive than petrol equivalents, and the second-hand market that most households actually buy from is still thin and uncertain, particularly around battery condition and replacement cost. Home charging is dramatically cheaper than public charging and requires off-street parking, which a substantial minority of households simply do not have. The result is a transition whose running-cost benefits accrue most readily to people who own driveways, while those charging on street or at public rapid chargers pay considerably more per mile, sometimes more than petrol. That is a policy design outcome rather than an inevitability.

Running Costs Are Not Uniformly Lower

For owners, the picture is genuinely mixed rather than uniformly positive. Fuel costs fall substantially for anyone charging at home. Servicing is simpler with fewer moving parts. Set against that, insurance has been markedly more expensive for many electric models, repair costs after damage can be higher, and tyres may need replacing sooner because of the weight and torque involved. Anyone presenting electric ownership as universally cheaper is being selective, and anyone presenting it as more expensive overall is usually ignoring the fuel saving. It depends heavily on where you charge. That single variable does more to determine the household economics of an electric car than the purchase price, the model or the driving pattern, and it is almost entirely determined by housing rather than by any choice the driver makes. A tenant in a flat and an owner with a driveway face different economics for identical vehicles, which is an uncomfortable finding for a policy built around individual purchasing decisions.

What the Advisory Body Actually Says

This is territory where the official analysis is more nuanced than either side of the public argument. The Climate Change Committee, the independent statutory body advising government on carbon budgets, has consistently identified surface transport as one of the sectors where decarbonisation must accelerate, and its assessments treat vehicle electrification as necessary rather than sufficient, alongside reductions in car use, modal shift and demand management. That framing is worth holding onto, because a strategy resting entirely on replacing every petrol car with an electric one addresses carbon while leaving congestion, road danger, particulate pollution and the space cars occupy in cities entirely untouched.

The Uncomfortable Conclusion for Everyone

If the honest position is that electrification is necessary and insufficient, it follows that the harder measures are the ones that matter: fewer car journeys, better public transport, safer conditions for walking and cycling, and vehicle weight becoming a policy question rather than a market outcome. Those are considerably less popular than swapping one kind of car for another, which is precisely why the debate keeps returning to the vehicle rather than to the system it operates in. It is also why the loudest voices on both sides of the argument end up implicitly agreeing on something: that the car remains the unit of analysis, and that the question is only which sort of car it should be.

What This Means for Drivers Now

For people making decisions in the meantime, the practical points are modest. An electric car remains a substantial improvement on a petrol one for most drivers on carbon and on urban air quality. Whether it saves you money depends almost entirely on where you charge it. It will likely be harder on tyres, which is a real running cost worth planning for rather than a reason to avoid the technology. And none of this is a substitute for the questions about how much driving we need to be doing at all, which will still be waiting whatever is under the bonnet.

By Nathan Spears

Source link

The post Ann Widdecombe murder: what we now know appeared first on spiked.

Source link

‘I’ve never lost:’ Rahm Emanuel makes his case for the White House

lead image

Source link