Chris Nineham and Ben Jamal, two well-known protest organisers, were convicted in the UK for defying police restrictions. Their convictions stem from a planned protest in London last January against the UK’s complicity in the genocide in Gaza.

The conviction follows charges brought under the Public Order Act, finding the organisers guilty on two counts.

Chris Nineham, 62, is the vice-chair of the Stop the War Coalition and Ben Jamal, 61, is chair of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. The protest route to the BBC had been approved in advance at the end of November. Nevertheless, late restrictions were imposed by the police due to potential disruption to a local synagogue.

Yet again, this ruling is likely a sharp blow to pro-Palestinian advocacy groups as it exposes the systemic threats to the rights of protest in the UK.

🚨NEW: pic.twitter.com/FsMNrlDvBN

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) April 1, 2026

Pro-Palestine censorship

This case has drawn major criticism from the public, with heightened concerns amongst pro-Palestinian activists that the pro-Israeli interests are superseding our right to protest in the UK.

Since October 7, 2023, the UK has seen more than 20 national protests against the genocide on Gaza whilst calling for the UK government to end its long-standing and unqualified support for Israel. Typically, protests tend to proceed as marches through central London, yet the police enforced restrictions often require a static rally instead.

These restrictions have undoubtedly chilled protesters, undermining their right to demonstrate and blocking their efforts to challenge the BBC’s biased coverage of Israel’s latest barbaric war on Palestinians. A ‘war’ which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have ruled amounts to a plausible genocide.

When the prosecution called him to testify, Metropolitan Police Commander Adam Slonecki, who managed the operation, acknowledged that a protest outside the BBC would be “legitimate” because it is a “public institution”. Yet he also explained that concerns about potential disruption to a local synagogue led the Met to impose restrictions on the protest, even after it had already been approved.

Middle East Eye reported:

the Metropolitan Police altered the route following objections from pro-Israel groups, the chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, and several MPs.

The charges relate to a speech made by Jamal towards a crowd of protestors. Subsequently, a march towards the BBC followed which seemingly overwhelmed police officers. The judge presiding over the case declared his speech, which referred to protest leaders planning to try to walk towards the BBC in resistance to the clear censorship at play, as “incitement”.

Summers KC: Anti-protest laws are “Unlawful”

Once again, the police and government officials manipulate and weaponise righteous anger while presenting punitive, authoritarian policies as “fair”. This repressive dichotomy only serves the interests of the status quo and the most powerful in society, while weakening the collective power of ordinary people.

District Judge Daniel Sternberg delivered the judgement following a 3-day trial, saying:

The court emphasised that protest rights while fundamental, are not absolute and do not permit breaching lawfully imposed restrictions.

Needless to say, this judgment only heightens threats to our right to protest, as it clearly empowers the police to impose restrictions that directly neuter the impact of demonstrations.

Middle East Eye reported:

Kevin Dent KC, representing the British government, showed the court a video of a speech made in January 2025 in which Jamal told a crowd that he and other protest leaders planned to attempt to walk towards the BBC’s headquarters to protest the corporation’s reporting of the genocide in Gaza as an example of “incitement”.

Defence Barrister Mark Summers lambasted the case as “unlawful”, referring to a prior Court of Appeal ruling this legislation unlawful as it grants the police “unlimited powers” in restricting protests.

The ruling referred to came in 2025 which found in favour of Human Rights organisation Liberty, with the government losing its appeal. Liberty inform:

then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman did not have the power to create a new law that lowered the threshold of when the police can impose conditions on protests from anything that caused ‘serious disruption’ to anything that was deemed as causing ‘more than minor’ disruption.

Summers also suggested that, as opposed to protesters breaking the police line, the “clusterfuck” was due to chaotic and reactive policing. Pointing to operational confusion, poor communication and the clear inability to manage large numbers, Summers laid the blame at the feet of the Met Police.

Nonetheless, despite referring to this highly relevant appeal and correlating factors at play in this case, Sternberg found against the protest organisers.

Funny that.

Outside court, @johnmcdonnellMP reacts to the news that @STWuk Chris Nineham and @PSCupdates Ben Jamal have been found guilty of trumped up charges around a pro-Palestine protest last year. The law is an ass. pic.twitter.com/lsmnAKjZZ6

— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) April 1, 2026

The government are working to make protest powerless

It is clear that the government are refusing to back down in its attempts to intimidate and bully British citizens into no longer standing by our Palestinian comrades. Heavily funded by the Israel Lobby, Starmer’s government have long ignored and diminished rising islamophobia, whilst unduly declaring anti-Zionist positions as antisemitic.

Jamal and Nineham plan to appeal this judgement, and rightfully so, as this precedent can only be an omen for advocates across the country.

After all, whether you are pro-Palestinian or not, the ability to protest is a fundamental pillar stone of a functioning democracy. It is the way in which ordinary people speak truth to those in power.

When police powers restrict the ability to protest, they don’t just enforce the law – they silence dissent, weaken collective voices, and threaten the very heart of democratic freedom.

Therefore, defending the right to protest is defending our power to demand justice, at home and in Palestine.

Featured image via the Canary

Lakenheath Alliance for Peace (LAP) has handed in a letter at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk. The letter, to the UK and US base commanders, highlights war crimes supported by RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall. It details their disregard of International Law and concerns about UK control of the bases. Although the US Air Force uses the bases, they’re British sovereign territory and the UK is legally liable.

This will be the sixth letter LAP has handed in to base commanders. It signals the start of a six day International Peace Camp at RAF Lakenheath’s main gates. LAP has received no reply to any of its previous letters.

Well over 100 fighter jets and bombers have deployed from RAF Lakenheath for the attack on Iran. RAF Mildenhall has also had active involvement in the illegal war of aggression by providing refuelling for bombers deploying to the Middle East. Israeli fighter jets have been recorded flying in and out of Mildenhall.

Attacks on civilian infrastructure such as desalination plants in Iran and hospitals in Gaza are war crimes. As is the bombing of an Iranian elementary girls school, killing at least 175 children and teachers.

Nukes at RAF Lakenheath

LAP believes US nuclear B61-12 bombs have already arrived at RAF Lakenheath. The UK government has kept this secret. Norwich based Lesley Grahame said:

Mass destruction is plain wrong, wherever and whoever the perpetrator. When it comes from your neighbourhood, it is for us to stand up and say no, or become a complicit target. Our refusal of consent is active, non-violent and necessary.

The deployment of newly developed nuclear weapons with advanced capabilities is not compatible with the UK’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations and is a breach of Article 1 which states:

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.

USAF fighter / bombers including F-35As, F-15Es and F-22s have been deployed from ‘RAF’ Lakenheath for the attack on Iran along with numerous C-17s. Although they are USAF planes, the fact that they are using UK territory makes it an act of aggression by the UK against Iran.

The Military Aviation YouTube channel filmed and published three Israeli F-35I arriving at RAF Mildenhall on 16 February and then departing for Israel on 18 February. The Israeli media had reported the delivery of the new aircraft on 20 January. Israel has used the F-35I in attacks against Gaza, Yemen and Iran.

LAP is calling on the base commanders to take immediate steps to bring all illegal activities at these bases to an end and to return any nuclear bombs that may already be at RAF Lakenheath to the US. Members of the public are welcome to join in with activities at the Lakenheath International Peace Camp from 1-6 April.

Read the full text of the letter here.

Featured image via YouTube / Military Aviation Channel

The Green Party conference passed a motion opposing energy nationalisation with just 0.2% of members voting for that. If progressives want the Greens to succeed they need to show up and do their part. Obviously some people are working hard but they could get a better long-term deal on that if they engaged with democratic process.

Idolisation is not enough

It’s not enough to leave it to Zack Polanski to solve issues. The idolisation of figureheads, however much what they say resonates, is a lacklustre approach to politics.

There’s a lesson from history here. Former UK prime minister Clement Attlee initially opposed some of the nationalisations of his 1945 government. It was a 1944 Labour conference and “conscious mass participation” from members of the public that solidified and advanced the changes.

At its conference, the Greens watered down previous commitments to energy nationalisation. Now the party has voted to bring only the energy infrastructure (grid and distribution) into public ownership.

The motion essentially stated that competition is a better mechanism for energy providers.

Politics and identity

You can have a political dimension without that becoming you’re entire identity. In fact, it’s quite critical that you do given politics is what determines the cost of essentials, the legislation you live under, and the freedoms you have.

The Green Party have over 215,000 members yet only a handful of them are choosing what could become government policy one day.

The fourth industrial revolution, if approached with public equity, will bring similar questions of identity. No longer will people identify with the job they had.

Worth it

With such potential on the cards, it’s crucial that people do their part. Movements that rely only on figureheads rarely make actual change, even if it’s bringing back and improving policies older generations already enjoyed (free tuition fees, public ownership of essentials, affordable housing, etc).

If you’re a progressive, make your voice heard.

Featured image via the Canary

LELO/ Smile Makers Collection

What to look for in a clit suction vibrator

Not sure if an oral sex toy is for you? Don’t worry, the ROMP X Lovehoney Switch is a budget-friendly option for beginners thanks to having just six intensity levels to choose from.

Anything that ends with the suffix ‘et’ is always adorable, so of course the same goes for this teeny Womanizer X Lovehoney Starlet vibe, which is small enough to fit in your handbag.

Next time your lover asks you your favourite kind of flowers, you’ll know what to say. Because trust us, this toy didn’t blow up on social media for no reason. Come find us when it’s the favourite toy in your collection.

Two words: guaranteed orgasms. I’m sure we don’t need to say more, but just in case you need a little extra convincing, this sex toy is basically two in one – vibrator and clit suction toy. If 100% of testers can have an orgasm the first time they use it, you will too.

Let’s get one thing straight: making the most of your pleasure isn’t ‘indulging’. It’s what life is all about. Now we’ve got that gripe at the name of this toy out of the way, can we have a moment for the dual stimulation design? We see a blended orgasm in your future, and it is bright.

Truly, is there anything better than a sex toy that requires literally zero effort to come? This might look like an odd shape, but once you’ve rested the suction end against your C-spot, and the other vibrating end against your vagina and leave it there to get off hands-free, nothing else in the world matters. Yeah… it’s my go-to toy for a reason.

You know the saying ‘bang for your buck’? Well, that applies to this toy. It might cost a pretty penny, but that’s for good reason. Life is all about self reflection, and LELO has gone back and tweaked its best-selling toy not one, two, but three times now to get to this perfect, wide-mouthed, non-numbing glory of a little fucker. You really get what you pay for.

There’s a reason most of the greatest poetry in the world is about romantic love. And I’m going to make the bold guess that it’s because of great head. This vibe will turn you into a sonnet writer in just one use, thanks to the fact it has three mouth sizes to change between for the perfect fit to your clit, and the sweet shape that fits exactly in the palm of your hand. Gorgina.

Ariana Grande had one thing right when she sang ‘thank you, Next’. She must have been talking about this brand new toy, right? This is a rabbit vibrator Samantha Jones could have only dreamed of. As well as a vibrating shaft, it’s loaded with 14 modes of Pleasure Air Technology that warm you up to an orgasm – and down.

1) It’s brimming with antioxidants

2) It could be good for our gut health

3) It could help to manage inflammation

4) It may help to manage blood sugar

Jannike Wachowiak offers some insight into the EU’s perspective on UK-EU relations.

Brits spend an inordinate amount of time discussing what they want from the EU. They spend far less, however, pondering what the EU and its member states might want from them. This is perhaps understandable. Brexit has been a central fault line in British politics and has divided our political parties for more than a decade. Consequently, from the Malthouse Compromise to more recent calls for a customs union, the intended audience is often domestic. That said, this is hardly a recipe for a successful negotiation between the two sides.

So, where does the EU stand on all this? Perhaps the first thing to note is that the UK no longer features prominently on the EU’s list of priorities. European leaders simply don’t spend much time thinking about relations with the UK. The war in Ukraine, relations with the US and China, and the competitiveness of the single market have long replaced Brexit at the top of the council’s agenda.

A window of opportunity opened when Labour came to power in July 2024. There was genuine curiosity about the promised reset. However, European leaders quickly grew impatient over the perceived lack of clarity and drive from London. As ever, they felt the ball was in the UK’s court. That it was up to London to decide what it wanted and communicate this. This view still holds. As the commission’s chief spokesperson put it as recently as February, the forthcoming summit (presumably in July 2026) would be “the occasion to discuss with UK what, exactly they, have in mind, and how they propose to go about it.”

Partly, this is due to a sense that it should not be the EU’s responsibility to fix what the UK broke; partly, the EU’s institutions still remember past attempts at closer cooperation being rebuffed by the UK. Most significantly, the EU remains wary of offering a ‘privileged’ relationship to the UK which could then unravel established relationships with other third countries, such as Norway or Switzerland.

None of which is to say that the EU is not interested in closer relations with the UK. There is a recognition that times have changed since the TCA negotiations of 2020, and that the UK is an important partner in a more dangerous world. The commission’s 2024-29 political guidelines make it clear that the EU wants to strengthen relations ‘on issues of shared interest, such as energy, security, resilience and people-to-people contacts’.

The UK government might be well advised to focus on these areas. While talks are already underway on UK participation in the EU’s electricity market and youth mobility, cooperation on security and resilience remains, at present, underexplored. However, as in the case of the failed Safe negotiations, there is no guarantee of success even in areas of mutual interest. Nevertheless, both sides appreciate the need for cooperation. Importantly, the EU recently decided to leave the door ajar for UK companies to benefit from the €90bn loan for Ukraine.

Conspicuously absent from the Commission’s list of ‘shared interests’ is trade. More than five years into the application of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, its most recent assessment maintains that it is a ‘very good’ agreement for the EU. This indicates a high threshold for reviewing the economic elements of the deal. What is more, the British Prime Minister’s expressed interest in exploring alignment in certain areas of the single market comes up against the EU’s red lines: no cherry-picking, and the need to maintain the balance of rights and obligations in agreements with other third countries. While the EU’s willingness to negotiate agreements on food and drinks and electricity shows some flexibility, it is unlikely that this will extend to further areas of the single market unless there is a wider discussion around freedom of movement and significant cohesion payments.

An additional difficulty is that the EU is currently discussing ‘Made in EU’ targets which might shut out certain British products and technologies from European supply chains. It will be up to member states (and the European Parliament) to define whether ‘Made in EU’ extends to trusted partners outside the single market.

While excluding the UK would be bad news for Europe’s resilience, there is no unified EU view. Some, like Germany, advocate more permissive conditions for a partner which they deem strategically important (‘Made with Europe’ rather than ‘Made in Europe’).However, others, like France, are pushing back – wanting to favour their own industries – or are simply less concerned by how a third country like the UK may be impacted.

All of which means the UK must invest time and resources in understanding the evolving priorities in Brussels and in member states. London needs to consider what contribution the UK can usefully make to strengthening Europe’s resilience and security. This would also make it easier to test British proposals in other areas, in dialogue with the EU and member states, ultimately increasing their chances of success.

By Jannike Wachowiak, Research Associate, UK in a Changing Europe.

This piece was originally published by the Fabian Society in their report Pressing reset: our relationship with Europe.

Protests across at least 10 cities have highlighted the harms of ‘touristification’.

Particularly through its reliance on aviation, the tourism industry is driving displacement, deepening housing crises and fueling climate breakdown worldwide.

Demonstrations were seen in Barcelona, Palma and San Sebastián (Spain), Belfast (Northern Ireland), Lisbon (Portugal), Malolos (Philippines), Marseille and Paris (France), Mexico City (Mexico) and Vienna (Austria).

Worldwide action

From marches and performances to blockades and direct actions, communities resisted the transformation of neighbourhoods into ‘playgrounds for the rich’.

Across the world, long-term residents are being priced out. Urban and coastal areas are also reshaped for tourists and multinational companies.

International tourism relies heavily on air travel, one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions. Backed by cheap flights and expanding air routes, this model privatises public land, drives up rents and undermines local economies, pushing communities into increasingly precarious conditions.

Protesters stressed that touristification and aviation are intertwined crises, driven by a system that prioritises profit over people and the planet.

World Cup of dispossession

In Mexico, protesters denounced the impacts of large-scale events like the FIFA World Cup. They called it the “World Cup of dispossession”, promoting local displacement, private interests and megaprojects instead of human rights, such as housing, water and dignified work.

In Barcelona, Palma, San Sebastián, Belfast and Vienna, demonstrators called for an end to the expansion of short-term tourist accommodation. This includes listings on platforms like AirBnB, which they argue drive up housing costs and accelerate gentrification.

In Marseille, protests highlighted the social and environmental impacts of overtourism.

In Malolos, fisherfolk and community members opposed the construction of the new Manila International Airport, which is driving displacement and the loss of livelihoods.

‘Fewer planes, more homes’ was a slogan seen in Paris and in Lisbon, where protesters formed a red line to oppose the conversion of a city-centre building into a hotel.

Drawing a red line

Inês Teles, spokesperson for the global network Stay Grounded, said:

We need to draw a red line. We must stop airport expansion, reduce air traffic, limit short-term tourist accommodation and make housing a right, not a commodity. We are united in the fight for affordable, accessible housing for all and against the forces that profit from our homes, displace people and destroy our planet. Our communities and the planet are not for sale.

These actions took place during the Housing Action Days (23–29 March), a global week of mobilisation with over 150 actions in 96 cities, demanding housing justice on a liveable planet.

Featured image via Stay Grounded

Subscribe to the Commons People podcast