What does this mean for my sleep?

What does this mean for parents?

Any other thoughts?

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has banned the planned Al Quds Day march in London for Sunday 15 March. Mahmood no doubt needed little persuading, rendering the Metropolitan Police’s decision to side with the UK Israel lobby little more than a pretext.

Mahmood caves to Israel lobby

In a statement, the Met claimed that:

The Al Quds march is uniquely contentious having originated in Iran and in London is organised by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, an organisation supportive of the Iranian regime… The threshold to ban a protest is high and we do not take this decision lightly; this is the first time we have used this power since 2012.

The Metropolitan Police routinely polices hundreds of protests which have counter protesters. Free speech and the right to protest are protected in law and we have a proven track record of upholding these values.

The Met appears to think opponents of genocide and imperialism have forgotten the traps it laid for an entirely peaceful anti-genocide march in January 2025. That entrapment, despite abundant footage of police inviting marchers through police lines, was used to charge and prosecute leading peace organisers. The state continues to insist peaceful demonstrators ‘forced’ their way through.

Organisers of the march, the Islamic Human Rights Commission, have strongly condemned the decision:

IHRC strongly condemns the desicion by the Metropolitan Police to ban the Al Quds Day March.

However, a static Al Quds Day protest will still go ahead.

We hope to see you on Sunday 15th March InshaAllah.

We are seeking legal advice and this decision will not go unchallenged.

Advertisement

And they made it clear that Shabana Mahmood has made a political decision:

If it was not clear already, the police have brazenly abandoned their sworn principle of policing without fear or favour, and have capitulated to the pressure of the Zionist lobby. The Metropolitan Police unashamedly regurgitate Zionist talking points about IHRC without a shred of evidence. They cannot present evidence because there is none – we are an independent NGO. In essence, this is a politically charged desicion; not one taken for the security of the people of London

What right to protest?

The force’s statement also invidiously linked the march to threats and terrorism – and to claim that Iran is “attacking British allies”, rather than retaliating after unprovoked attacks:

We must also consider that the security services have been publicly clear about the threats we are facing on UK soil from the Iranian regime. In the last year MI5 and Counter Terrorism Policing have foiled over 20 Iranian state-backed attacks on the UK. Last week counter-terrorism officers arrested four people under the National Security Act after they allegedly spied on Jewish communities for the Iranian regime and, separately, at the weekend a man was reportedly stabbed by someone who had opposing views on the Iranian regime.

No evidence has so far been provided to the public for any of these arrests or ‘foiled attacks’.

In typical Orwellian style, the Met then claimed that it protects the right to protest, while warning that those who protest this weekend will “crossover [sic] into criminality [and] will face the full force of the law” and that:

We urge the organisers to comply with our conditions or face arrest.

Right.

The UK regime is an enabler of rogue-state terrorism and is more than willing to subordinate the rights of its citizens to the interests of Israel and the US.

Featured image via the Canary

Women who survived Ireland’s mother and baby homes are now having their benefits cut by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in Britain. Appallingly, the cuts are happening because these women accepted compensation from the Irish government for the horrific abuse and trauma they experienced.

DWP: Ireland’s historic abuse of unwed mothers

Mother and Baby Homes spread through Ireland in the 1900s, right up until 1990. They were seen as a “refuge” for unwed mothers and their babies. But they were actually church ran instutions that trapped women who were often sent there by their families, who had disowned them for getting pregnant. These included women who’d been abused or exploited. There were more than a dozen of them in Ireland. Three of them were “Magdalene laundries”, which were essentially workhouses.

The women in the ‘homes’ were forced into labour and experienced horrific abuse from the nuns. There was also a horrifically high death rate of babies in some institutions. In 2012, a mass grave was discovered on the site of a former home in Tuam. 796 children’s remains were found. Many children who survived were trafficked across the Irish border for adoption (from ROI to Northern Ireland), and documents were falsified to make it harder to reunite mother and baby.

Finally, after mass campaigning, the Irish government launched an inquiry. It detailed the horrendous experiences of 56,000 women and 57,000 children between 1922 and 1998. After this, the government set up the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme, which began awarding compensation in 2024.

DWP causing survivors even more harm

However, because the DWP is a completely barbaric institution, survivors are now suffering in a different way.

The Guardian reports that up to 13,000 survivors who now live in Britain could risk losing their means-tested benefits, such as Universal Credit, if they accept. This is because the compensation goes towards the amount of savings the claimant has.

Compensation ranges from €5,000 to €125,000 (£4,230 to £105,000) depending on the length of time someone spent there. Universal Credit claimants are only allowed a maximum of £6,000 in their bank accounts; after that, every £250 extra sees £4.35 reduced from the payment. There is no upper limit on Pension Credit; however, past £10,000 every £500 you have sees £1 reduced from your payment.

If a claimant has over £16,000 in the bank, they automatically lose their benefit. Not only that, but they will lose associated benefits such as Housing benefit. So a woman who went through the most horrific experience of her life, who now struggles to work, or is on pension credit, could see her benefits lost because she accepted compensation.

As this news has spread, some have been forced to turn down their compensation offers for fear they will lose their benefits. After six months, the Irish government counts this as a rejection.

Support Philomena’s Law

Labour MP Liam Conlon has introduced a bill to parliament calling for the government to introduce an ‘indefinite capital disregard’ for mother and baby payments. The bill is named Philomena’s Law, after Philomena Lee, a survivor who was portrayed by Judi Dench.

Conlon said:

What Whitehall often misses is the human-sized picture. In this case, that is thousands and thousands of survivors of these cruel institutions living in Britain today, who are being denied the compensation they’re entitled to

The campaign is backed from prominment Irish figures such as Siobhán McSweeney. However, due to the restraints of parliament, the bill is in danger of running out of time.

It’s absolutely cruel that the DWP is once again punishing these women who survived unimaginable abuse. You can write to your MP to ask them to support the campaign here 

These women have already suffered so much; it’s absolutely horrific that the DWP won’t even allow them to accept compensation without the threat of losing their state support.

Featured image via the Canary

Ben Worthy offers his reflections on the impact of the Mandelson / Epstein scandal on British politics and how it compares to previous political scandals such as the Partygate scandal.

A number of journalists have pointed to the similarities between Boris Johnson’s Partygate and the Mandelson / Epstein scandal. Like Johnson in 2021, Starmer is no longer in control of the disclosure. It is likely that leaks, briefings and publications will keep the issue, and the Prime Minister’s role, in the headlines.

Starmer promised probity and morality against Johnson’s legacy of lying, secrecy and dishonesty. Yet, like Partygate, the Mandelson scandal, as Kemi Badenoch put it, cuts to the ‘very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment’. Both connected the prime minister to a toxic and deeply disturbing set of behaviours: Johnson’s ignorance of the suffering of Covid, and Starmer’s apparent ignoring of the suffering of Epstein’s many victims.

This is not to say the two scandals are the same. Partygate was a revelation of a personal moral failing, a deeply buried secret was let out only by a leak in late 2021. Johnson continued to claim in his memoirs that it was ‘over-blown’, and revenge by disgruntled Remainers (though it appears it was appalled Brexiters).

By contrast, Starmer’s scandal was an ‘open secret’, with a trail going back years. The horrors of Epstein’s abuses have been known for decades. Knowledge of Mandelson’s close links with Epstein after his jailing have been in the public domain at least since 2023, after years of reporting by the FT and Daily Mail. Back in January 2025 Starmer was ‘lukewarm’ about appointing him and as recently as February 2025 Mandelson swore at FT journalists for mentioning it. The most recent trigger flowed from the Epstein Transparency Act and diligent and painstaking matching of documents after a leak.

The focus is now on a first ‘due diligence stage’ when Mandelson was appointed, when, as the Guardian explained a ‘document’ was given ‘to No 10 with outstanding questions before his appointment in late 2024’. Three questions were asked and reassurances apparently given. Starmer’s future now hinges on answer to a very specific question ‘When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction?’

Starmer replied at PMQs that Mandelson had ‘lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein, before and during his tenure as ambassador’ and explained how

What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. New information was published in September, showing that the relationship was materially different from what we had been led to believe.

Starmer’s future may depend on if the evidence convincingly shows the ‘sheer depth and the extent of the relationship’ and that the ‘new information was materially different’.

Rather like Johnson’s ignorance of the parties, opponents have questioned how Starmer did not know. Badenoch mocked Starmer’s ignorance ‘He did know, it was on Google…If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10?’ Voters were left unconvinced and 64% of voters ‘believe Starmer had enough information about their relationship to know it was bad idea to appoint Mandelson’ and only 21% felt he didn’t.

Starmer wanted to ‘release the documents as quickly as possible’  but events have proven otherwise. The danger for Starmer is that, like with Partygate, the government has now lost control of the disclosure process. As David Allen Green explains here, others will now control the flow of information, and it is almost certain that more information means more problems and revelations.

Just like Partygate, this scandal has triggered inquiries, and now arrests by the police, and a rather unusual role for The Intelligence and Security Committee, which has promised ‘maximum transparency’ and has asserted control over what will be released, with apparent agreement from the police.  It is even possible that Starmer could be investigated by his own Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, a post he strengthened because of Boris Johnson’s neglect of it.

There will now be continued pressure from Parliament and the media. Partygate triggered a series of forensic questions, especially from one Keir Starmer and a rolling series of leaks, briefings and tips, which drove more questions and scrutiny between MPs and the press.

The questions are already building for Starmer. The media are focusing on a key subset of emails held back by the police. Wes Streeting, a possible leadership candidate against Keir Starmer, has published some really quite convenient, if not downright Potemkin style, WhatsApp messages. In another potential avenue, before his arrest the US Congress has formally asked Mandelson to testify. The row, speculation and subsequent admission over who tipped off the Met may be the shape of things to come.

Another parallel is that this scandal comes amid worsening, if not broken, relations between the two most important groups in British politics: government and their own backbenchers. Partygate came just after a huge rebellion against Johnson, and his extremely questionable defence of an MP who breached the rules on lobbying.

Even before this, Labour MPs were deeply unhappy. The relationship between Labour MPs and the Labour Frontbench had deteriorated extraordinarily quickly, partly because of fragility of MPs majorities, partly because of inexperience, and partly because of an extraordinary series of missteps by the government. To worsen the situation, the public don’t believe Starmer’s defences, and a majority of voters now believe he should resign.  Both events deepen the crisis of trust in politics. Partygate worsened an already bleak picture, bringing it to a record low. Mandelson’s scandal undercuts all Starmer’s claims that he wants to restore and repair it.

It is unlikely one  piece of evidence or a document that will exonerate Starmer, rather than muddy the waters or making it worse. Even the formal investigations into Partygate, and the famous Gray reports, which seemed on the surface to clear Johnson, provided damning evidence in the small print and photos. Most importantly, it seems unlikely that this is the last of the revelations, with more buried deep in the Epstein Files or in the government’s own estimated 100,000 documents.

By Dr Ben Worthy, Lecturer in Politics, Birkbeck, University of London. 

Cabinet minister Sarah Sackman has refused to condemn the US-Israel school massacre in Iran in an interview with Sky News. The tomahawk bomb that fell on the primary school in Minab is highly likely to be a US bomb after verification by military specialists. This horrific war crime resulted in the murder of 175 people, most of those were children between the ages of 7 and 12.

The Independent reported:

Investigative group Bellingcat says a newly released video “appears to contradict” US President Donald Trump’s claim that Iran was responsible for the explosion.

It comes as mounting evidence points to US culpability for the February 28 strike, which hit a school adjacent to a Revolutionary Guard base in Minab, Iran, in the country’s southern Hormozgan Province.

However, Sackman’s abhorrent view is that the incident simply represents the ‘realities of war’.

Iran: in which reality are children an acceptable loss?

It never seems to be the ‘realities of war’ when it comes to the deaths of Western or Israeli children. As we have seen in Gaza, Israel kill an average of 28 Palestinian children every day. Many of these children have been killed before they even reached the age of one.

Evidently, these supposed “realities” are shaped by those who perpetrate them. And the reality is that the killings of people in the Global South are entirely acceptable to the so-called international order.

In an interview with Sky News on Tuesday, Sarah Sackman, a British minister has refused to declare the school massacre in Iran, which killed 165 people, many of them children, a war crime, labelling it the “realities of war”https://t.co/lAWVLtqAbL

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) March 10, 2026

Realities of Western war

We have written extensively about the illegal war that Zionist US and Israeli forces are waging against Iran’s civilian population. So far, their attacks have reportedly killed 1,230 people in Iran and another 394 in Lebanon. Again, 83 of those deaths were children. This latest Western aggression follows a long line of military action taken against the Middle East. Actions which have only served to destabilise and traumatise the region. The US and Israel want the world to look to its ‘military might’ with respect and affirm these hostile states as being the authority of international order.

Instead, it just underscores the inhumanity and lawless nature to which the US and Israel conduct their colonialist agendas. After all, this was never about liberating Iranians from their oppressive leader. It is and has always been about colonialist and imperialist plunder. The ‘liberation’ of Iraq led to the deaths of up to 4.7 million across the Middle East as a result of US/UK military aggression.

Deplorably, no accountability ever follows against Western war-hungry capitalists.

We wrote about the illegal war on Iraq which was said to ‘liberate Iraqis from Saddam Hussain’. In no surprise, it punished the civilian population far more than it benefitted them. Joe Glenton wrote in January:

The truth is that the Iraq War was illegal and killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people. The war destabilised the entire Middle East region, leaving a lasting impact on those who carried it out. By all measures, it was an unmitigated disaster. Yet, bizarrely, figures like Trump’s secretary of state Marco Rubio are clamouring to revive colonialism. Regime change in Iraq clearly taught them that war is profitable for the West.

Pointing to the actual result of Western military ‘intervention’ in the Middle East, Glenton added:

Since the ousting of the pre-2003 government, Iraq has become a lucrative cash cow for certain players, including global arms firms – what I prefer to call Big Death. Welcome to the military charity-industrial complex.

This post on X highlights the real motivating factors for the US:

America didn’t bring democracy to Iran- it stole it. In 1954, the CIA overthrew Iran’s elected leader Mossadegh because he wanted Iranians to control their own oil.

US don’t have a foreign policy-US have a franchise model: install puppets, steal resources, call it “stability.” pic.twitter.com/WsnEFfc3Kt

— Ounka (@OunkaOnX) January 10, 2026

UK involved in US war crimes once again, albeit sluggishly

Three US B1-B Lancer aircrafts recently departed from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire following Keir Starmer’s choice to allow the US to use our bases. Simultaneously, Iran saw its most intense day of bombing. HMS Dragon, after a week of loading it with weapons and artillery, set sail yesterday for Iran. Although, this was four days later than planned which suggests a sluggish approach by the current government to jump into such flagrant illegal military actions.

Nevertheless, the UK is involved in this war, and when the aggression was unprovoked, there can be no ‘defence’ about it. After all, Iran has the right to self defence under international law – aggressors do not.

As a result, Western racist hypocrisy and our clear double standards are on full display. Global South countries do not have legal rights no matter the circumstances, whereas the West has all the rights no matter the circumstances.

We all know that there can never be peace or freedom without justice. Unwarranted and unwelcome Western intervention led to a more extreme government taking over in Iran – stomping all over their rights and freedoms will not lead to a more progressive government. Neither will mass grief and trauma.

Some days you find out things about people you’ve barely heard of before.

Today I found out that @sarahsackman

Advertisement

– Is the main driver behind banning the 800 year right to a Jury Trial.
– Was trained at the Israel Supreme Court
– Won’t say the Minab Massacre was a War Crime. https://t.co/E2nQKfyTC9

— Mountain (@sharpeleven) March 10, 2026

Corrupt

We only have to look to Sarah Sackman’s background and her actions to question the legitimacy of her ‘professional view’. Some light scrutiny suggests her view is little more than a corrupted, foreign-influenced stance that does not reflect the values of ordinary British people. For instance, she supports the genocide on Gaza, the majority of British people do not.

Furthermore, the post above highlights how Sackman played a key role in pushing through the systemic cuts to the human rights of some defendants in the UK. After all, the right to a fair trial affords the right to a trial by jury under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

Consequently, the optics can’t be avoided. Sackman wants to ignore the human rights of those murdered by the US and Israel, whilst taking crucial human rights away from British citizens. To do so whilst the UK is encroaching further and further into war with Iran is beyond despicable.

The British people must reckon with the reality that by creating a hierarchy of human rights and dignity abroad, we invite a hierarchy of human rights and indignity at home.

Featured image via the Canary

3 min read45 min

PoliticsHome understands that the new definition, announced on Monday as part of a wider social cohesion strategy, was amended during the writing process to be as robust as possible in the face of an expected legal action, with one government source saying that the wording had been put through the “legal ringer” in preparation for judicial review.

The government asked an independent working group, led by former Conservative cabinet minister Dominic Grieve, to advise on whether a new definition of Islamophobia was needed in response to a rise in hate crimes against Muslims.

Ministers received a template definition from the group in September and spent the subsequent months finalising the wording.

During the process, as PoliticsHome reported in October, the government decided to drop the term Islamophobia and instead refer to anti-Muslim hostility.

The adopted definition focuses on anti-Muslim hostility as “violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated” towards Muslims. 

The government decided not to include a clause identifying Muslims as a race, explaining that Muslims come from a range of racial backgrounds. Instead, the definition sets out how hostility towards the group includes prejudiced stereotyping based on perceived markers of being Muslim, like appearance, dress and names.

Speaking on Monday, the cabinet minister leading the work, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, said: “Crucially, this definition protects the fundamental right to freedom of speech while protecting people from unacceptable abuse and violence.

“A special representative on anti-Muslim hostility will also be appointed to support action to strengthen understanding, reporting and response.”

The definition was welcomed by the Chair of the British Muslim Trust, Shabir Randeree, who said it would “help guide institutions that have too often been too slow or too weak in their responses to incidents a tolerant and respectful country like ours must never accept”.

Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, said his organisation was pleased that the wording seeks to combat hostility towards Muslims “while explicitly protecting speech that is critical of religious ideas, in line with international human rights standards”.

However, on Tuesday, The Telegraph reported that the Free Speech Union (FSU) was preparing a pre-action letter and threatening legal action.

FSU founder, Conservative peer Toby Young, argued the definition is illegal because it would result in criticism of Islam being censored. “Bringing a judicial review against a secretary of state isn’t cheap, but we believe this is a vitally important free speech issue. Blasphemy crimes were repealed as far back as 2008 — let’s keep it that way,” he told PoliticsHome.

There is confidence in Whitehall that any legal challenge brought by free speech campaigners will be unsuccessful.

Government sources familiar with the definition-writing process told PoliticsHome there are three broad reasons why it took six months to produce the final wording, with one being ensuring the definition would stand up to a legal challenge.

The second was making sure it could be applied in public sector settings like the NHS and the police as simply as possible, while the third was an effort to make sure the government was sufficiently engaged with Muslim communities.

Lord Walney, former extremism adviser, told PoliticsHome: “Already people are signalling they will use this definition to try to silence criticism of Islam, which must be allowed in a free society.

“So the government must monitor this situation closely and be prepared to reverse their decision if the definition has the chilling effect many of us fear it will.”

PoliticsHome has contacted the government for comment.

Israeli fascist minister Bezalel Smotrich’s son, Benya Hebron, is in critical condition after just minutes of fighting in Israel’s war of aggression on Lebanon. Hebron, a member of the notorious Golani Brigade, was wounded by Lebanese resistance shelling. Smotrich said:

Shrapnel penetrated his back and abdomen.

He continued:

He was rushed to the hospital … one of the fragments tore the liver and stopped at the wall of the largest blood vessel in the abdomen. Had it, God forbid, been damaged, the situation would’ve been far more serious.

Smotrich is a central facilitator of Israel’s latest crimes in Lebanon as well as of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The occupation’s latest attacks on Lebanon have murdered almost 500 people and forcibly and illegally displaced almost 700,000 people.

Israeli generals have admitted being shocked by the intensity of resistance to the occupation’s invasion.

Featured image via the Canary