Source link

The post How BLM ideology captured the cops appeared first on spiked.

Source link

Israeli men aged 21 and 22 have been arrested by police in Cyprus for attempted murder. One of the men allegedly stabbed a Cypriot man — as well as two security guards who tried to stop the attack. The attempted murders happened in Ayia Napa, leaving one of the guards in critical condition after emergency surgery.

When police arrived to intervene, the attacker spewed insults at them. Both Israelis had to be subdued, leaving one injured from a blow to the head.

UK news blackout when it concerns Israeli crimes

No UK media or politicians appear to have mentioned the attack. Reports of violent and arrogant behaviour from Israelis in other countries abound — and not just from Israel’s notorious football thugs. Israel’s attempts to buy up land and properties in Cyprus as a bolthole to flee to when Israel’s victims retaliate have also raised tensions.

Regardless of context, there is simply no way UK media and politicians would ignore an attack on Israelis the same way they have this and other attacks by Israelis.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Senior criminal law barrister Dominic D’Souza acted for one of the Ukrainians accused — and acquitted this week — of setting fire to properties belonging to Keir Starmer. The defendants were allegedly ‘rent boys’ — a factor largely ignored by UK ‘mainstream’ media. And D’Souza says that he was astonished — his word was ‘pickled’ — by how much of what went on was ignored or even buried by prosecution and judge in the case.

Two men were convicted in the case. D’Souza’s client Petro Pochynok was acquitted. But when D’Souza read journalist Crispin Flintoff’s X post about the BBC’s unmerited rush to broadcast a programme claiming Russia was behind the attack, he quickly responded that his head was still “pickled” over how much was kept hidden:

I was leading defence counsel for Pochynok who was acquitted. Having come across your vid I remember seeing you in the public gallery every day! Even as the defence barrister in the trial itself, I still find my head pickled over what real underlying truths were never expposed

— Dominic D’Souza (@dsouzabarrister) June 16, 2026

D’Souza was far from the only one to notice. Former UK ambassador Craig Murray pointed out that the alleged figure behind the attack spoke Ukrainian, but that the media very suspiciously ignored this to focus on him also knowing how to speak Russian:

The BBC report that the man who organised the arson of Starmer related property was “Russian speaking”.
They fail to report the evidence was he also spoke Ukrainian.
Almost every Ukrainian can speak Russian.
Very few Russians can speak Ukrainian.

— Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) June 16, 2026

Starmer — “Wholly irrelevant”?

Grayzone journalists Kit Klarenberg and Max Blumenthal noted that the trial judge had forbidden information on the shadowy, Ukrainian-speaking instigator of the attacks from being entered into evidence:

As expected, the truth behind the Ukrainian rent boy attacks will be withheld from the British public https://t.co/pepep43coc

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) June 16, 2026

And Russian is almost universally spoken in Ukraine, a former part of the Soviet Union, while the converse is not true:

The ‘Russia’ link is extremely tenuous

EL spoke Russian and Ukrainian

Ukrainian is not a language widely spoken in Russia,

whereas almost every Ukrainian can speak Russian

— Donahue Rogers (@DonahueRogers) June 16, 2026

Advertisement

In the run-up to the trial, Skwawkbox asked why ‘mainstream’ media — with no court restrictions on reporting — were not asking questions about why the attacks were committed. The defendants were not charged under terror laws as would have been expected. That leaves open the question of a personal dimension to the motives for the arson, or some form of organised crime, something with which the nazi-riddled Ukrainian regime is hardly unfamiliar.

Flintoff is right. The BBC’s haste to lay the blame at Russia’s door — based on the most tenuous of connections — raised more questions than it is clearly meant to put to bed.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

One person was killed and two injured in the latest ‘narco’ boat strike in the eastern Pacific on 17 June. While all eyes are on US-Iran peace talks, US president Donald Trump’s administration is still terrorising Latin America.

The US has killed over 200 people in the Caribbean and Pacific under the guise of stopping ‘narco-terrorist’ boats. The US military’s southern command posted on X:

On June 16, at the direction of #SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations. Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known… pic.twitter.com/UGBRt9Mbdm

— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) June 17, 2026

Advertisement

Trump’s shadow war has been raging throughout 2026. The most aggressive phase was the kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro on 3 January. Maduro is still being held in New York awaiting trial.

Trump’s strategy for an American empire

French paper Le Monde pointed to Trump’s ambitions for a subservient Latin America as a matter of US policy:

We want a hemisphere whose governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels and other transnational criminal organizations (…) we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations.

The new drug war, like the old one, is fundamentally a neocolonial project. As US-based Latin America Studies professor Michelle D. Paranzino pointed out on 11 June:

The history of that war on drugs, however, especially during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, shows that the narco-terrorism label has always been politicized.

Adding:

Then, as now, this collaboration appears to be aimed at the leftist and communist governments in the Western Hemisphere.

In many cases, the drug framing is an explicit rationale for action.

The US has been remarkably aggressive

Bolivia is the latest country to sign up to US ‘anti-drug’ plans. The BBC reported on 17 June:

The foreign ministry said that under the agreement, the US would provide up to $20m (£15m) to train and equip Bolivian forces as part of a joint fight against drug smuggling.

Bolivia recently enlisted Trump’s centrepiece colonialist alliance:

Under a new centrist president, Rodrigo Paz, Bolivia has joined the Shield of the Americas, the US-led security initiative in the Western Hemisphere.

NPR interviewed left-wing historian of the Americas Greg Grandin on Trump’s remaking of the hemisphere. Grandin warned the new US strategy was “remarkable in its aggression”:

It’s remarkable in the sense that it feels no need to legitimate itself in terms of any kind of moral or normative justification. In Latin America and the Western Hemisphere, you have quite a remarkable, cohesive and, I would say, efficient application of all of the different applications of hard power – of U.S. hard power – to Latin America under the rubric of the war on drugs.

Adding:

I would say that, maybe with the exception of Uruguay, Washington is meddling in Latin American politics to different degrees of intensity in almost every Latin American nation.

Trump seemed poised to push harder against Latin American resistance before he blundered into a war with Iran in February. He lost that war. But with global attention on new peace talks, it is easy to forget that the dirty war in the western hemisphere is still underway.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

The Makerfield by-election has got people around the country talking about Andy Burnham again. And a new poll has shown that, with increasing scrutiny, he’s become a lot less popular. We reckon that’s because he represents the same kind of fence-sitting, corporate politics that gave the UK Keir Starmer.

Unsurprising popularity dive

Voters tend to view most politicians unfavourably, overall. But Andy Burnham was a rare case before the by-election campaign. Because there were actually more people who viewed him favourably. That has quickly changed in recent weeks, though, with YouGov reporting that his:

favourability has declined markedly over the past two months

Even 2024 Labour voters see him more negatively, with an extra 8% feeling this way. But in Makerfield specifically, he’s still more popular than his party is. And that could potentially allow him to win the by-election.

YouGov quotes one voter in the North West as saying:

Andy Burnham typifies modern politicians who put style and personality over belief in what they stand for.

Burnham’s history of corporate funding and U-turns backs that up. And it’s also the story we’ve seen in the Makerfield by-election campaign. Because Burnham has:

• Failed to meet the Green promise to back public ownership of utilities, making some weak half-promises instead.
• Refused to speak out clearly against Israel’s genocide, unlike his Green opponent.
• Made some vague noises about electoral reform but said that any change would first need to “be in a manifesto and endorsed at a general election” (which Labour is unlikely to win outright ever again).
• Pledged to cut welfare and increase defence spending.
• Suggested he will look for private funds to help finish off the highly controversial HS2 rail project.
• Claimed to want “less factionalism” while refusing to entertain the idea of readmitting Jeremy Corbyn into the Labour Party.

Burnham may still win in Makerfield, but there would be little cause for celebration

Makerfield never seemed like prime Green territory. And it seems unlikely that the Green Party candidate will be a real challenger in the election. But voices inside and outside the party calling for unity behind Burnham as an anti-Reform candidate seem to have the dangerously false impression that he’s an antidote to Reform advances.

Challenging Burnham from the left in this by-election is primarily because he has consistently failed to make firm promises. The Greens may possibly have stepped aside if he had clearly committed to electoral reform before the next election, but he didn’t — even though party members back it. As Green leader Zack Polanski said:

Anyone committed to proper democratic renewal in this country must commit to bringing in fair and genuine proportional representation at the earliest possible opportunity… We also need to get big money out of politics, stop disinformation, and scrap the archaic and undemocratic House of Lords. We’ve heard lots of promises and warm words from many Labour figures – but when it comes to it, we see inaction, U-turns and half-measures.

Reform, meanwhile, may have been awful enough by itself to tank its chances of winning. Suggesting it would back notorious child abuser Jimmy Savile, being generally misogynistic, and getting tetchy with others on the far right could all contribute to Reform losing.

Because Andy Burnham has promised little apart from ‘more of the same’, though, a victory for him wouldn’t be cause for celebration. And that’s probably why the increase in scrutiny has reduced his popularity in recent weeks.

Keir Starmer’s government has set a low bar, so Burnham may stretch slightly over that if he becomes Labour leader. But he alone is too much of a corporate lackey to bring any meaningful change to our political system. For that, only consistent organising and pressure from ordinary people will really make a difference.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Source link

Recent disturbing revelations connected to BBC favourite Ashley Cain prove that the UK and its institutions have a serious misogyny problem.

Moreover, the volume of evidence showing extremely bigoted, abusive rhetoric to diminish, demean and attack women shows how little sexualised abuse seems to matter to the state broadcaster.

When Cain’s rhetoric glorifies violence against women, it ceases to be mere opinion and becomes part of a culture that puts women and girls at risk. The damage is real, and so are the consequences.

Thus, the BBC has serious questions to answer. They did not merely tolerate this rhetoric — they helped amplify it. In doing so, they lent credibility to attitudes that women and girls across the country are already forced to confront every day.

Like typical offenders trying to hide the evidence of their abuse, Cain appears to have deleted his X account over the last week.

How the hell does Ashley Cain have a job at the BBC? I have never read such a timeline of concentrated and appalling misogyny https://t.co/pa63Dhf2mE

— Colleen Murrell (@ivorytowerjourn) June 17, 2026

Cain made ‘jokes’ about hitting women — then hired by the BBC

According to the Guardian, as now his X account is no longer there to refer to, Cain has had no qualms in keeping a long track record of abuse visible to the wider public, with disgusting sexist and abusive comments remaining from across the last decade.

As the exclusive report makes clear, this history was hardly buried. A basic search appears to have been enough to uncover it. Yet the BBC not only platformed him but reportedly held him up as an example of “what BBC Three was about”. That raises serious questions about the broadcaster’s judgement and its ability to decide who they deem as a positive role model to young men.

There are many disgusting things quoted by the Guardian, such as making jokes about hitting women whilst watching Jessica Hayes on Love Island in 2015 saying he “would have to choke slam” her “real quick”.

He didn’t stop there, however, with a later post shamefully saying he wanted to:

dick fuck her and her big mouth, spit in her face and then fuck her off.

The UK is afraid of Muslims? This guy is unhinged yet the BBC has lauded Ashley Cain for his appeal to young male audiences… All part of the same problem.https://t.co/I0u9GMStRa pic.twitter.com/6WIzWuQhMD

— Sidney Cotton (@Steph36Seaton) June 17, 2026

Disrespectful, derogatory rhetoric towards women

Prior to this, back in 2011, he also attempted to blur the lines of consent, arguably adding momentum to a growing rape culture amongst Western men. Apparently, Cain finds the idea of extreme sex acts against women — who he called a “bitch” — funny as if it’s a bit of lighthearted humour.

“No harm no foul” is likely the defence of those who might wish to shut this down, but as many women and girls know, this misogyny spreads especially when modelled to younger boys. As far too many will relate to, this can have deeply traumatic results for the UK’s female population.

He has also made comments which highlight exactly why women are scared of the threat posed by Farage and Reform UK in regard to reproductive rights as he posted:

eating bad food at weekends is like when a girl says, ‘Don’t cum in me’, but you do it anyway, then think ‘shit’.

Another post from Cain highlights the toxic male culture surrounding sex:

A girl bangs 100 guys = Slag

A guy bangs 100 girls = Ledge.

Banning social media whilst platforming dangerous influencers

Starmer announced this week that the Labour government will be imposing a ban on young people across popular social media platforms, stating it was necessary for their safety.

Yes, they’re a cesspit of misogynistic rubbish, and the damage they cause to young people is real. But that’s exactly why people should be trying to fix the problem — not acting as though abuse, harassment and sexism are somehow inevitable.

The answer isn’t to throw our hands up and say, “that’s just the internet”. The answer is to tackle the danger, hold platforms to account and stop treating toxic behaviour as normal.

A recent report published by children’s charity Barnardo’s underscored this very real issue facing the younger generations — who will be the adult abusers or victims of tomorrow. Boys are increasingly pressured to join in with sexist “banter”, while girls are forced to put up with degrading abuse at school, online, at work and in public. Anyone paying attention can see the problem is getting worse, not better.

That’s why it is so infuriating to watch the government sit on its hands. Instead of cracking down on abuse and forcing social media companies to clean up their platforms, ministers have chosen inaction. The result? Misogynists, predators and creeps continue to get free rein online, while women and girls are left to deal with the consequences.

Instead, the government chooses to restrict powerless, vulnerable and impressionable children.

"A source at the BBC said the corporation had been unaware of Cain’s social media posts".
Due diligence? What's that? https://t.co/PlHdundaos

— Briefcase Michael (@BriefcaseMike) June 17, 2026

Do those with influence even care about sexual abuse and misogyny?

This Guardian revelation is disturbing enough on its own. What makes it worse is that the BBC either didn’t bother doing proper due diligence or did and simply shrugged at his rhetoric. Either way, it exposes how normalised misogyny has become and how deeply its harmful attitudes remain woven into British society.

When violence against women and girls is rising exponentially year on year, it is getting harder and harder not to see a level of complicity for the government and the BBC in the endured trauma of young girls and women who will have undoubtedly suffered the consequences of influencers encouraging abusive attitudes and behaviours.

The social media ban will not protect children — it will simply push their use underground and increase the likelihood that they will suffer abuse in silence. After all, they’re told they are not allowed on highly addictive platforms so they will fear potential reprisal from their parents or adults if they speak up.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the ban is the chilling effect it could have on vulnerable children. If a child experiences abuse on a platform they are technically banned from using, they may think twice before telling a parent, teacher or guardian.

The fear of being blamed, punished or hit with an “I told you so” could push many to suffer in silence. That doesn’t protect children — it risks making abuse harder to spot, harder to report and easier for predators to hide.

#UzairQadeer #MattBrittin @BBC I'm really curious to know what your hiring criteria is for on screen talent? Presumably misogyny, obscenity, and the promotion of violence and sexual assault against women are high on the list? https://t.co/Tkple11aWT

— Sue Traynor (@TraynorSue) June 17, 2026

BBC — Will we ever protect women and girls from abusive men?

On the other hand, these platforms are crucial for a sense of connection and understanding for many young people. Society is overwhelming, isolating, and there are few opportunities for young people to talk to others and have a sense of community.

Even if that community is online, it has value for young people, as it does for older generations.

But we have a serious problem in the UK with sinister, harmful misogynistic attitudes amongst Western men — and now we know the government and the BBC have little interest in tackling that issue head on.

No, they platform them for their ‘success’ and they do whatever they can to appease abusive men rather than hold them accountable and make the behaviour expensive.

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

On 15 June, the government announced a social media ban for under-16s. Since then, many groups and experts have spoken out, including Save the Children:

This announcement reflects legitimate concerns about children's safety online, but a ban of this scale would change how children access and experience the digital world. The UK Government must ensure that any decisions are informed by children themselves and by independent… https://t.co/HbwviVkGvt pic.twitter.com/m655lWUo2y

— Save the Children UK (@savechildrenuk) June 15, 2026

Save the Children

The above response reads:

This announcement reflects legitimate concerns about children’s safety online, but a ban of this scale would change how children access and experience the digital world. The UK Government must ensure that any decisions are informed by children themselves and by independent experts.

We are concerned that a blanket ban may look protective on paper, but instead pushes children into less regulated spaces, where they are less likely to seek help when something goes wrong. Children growing up in poverty are likely to be among those most affected.

If young people use sites like Facebook or TikTok, there are things we can do to push these companies to better regulate. After all, these are businesses, and if they want access to the UK market, they need to play by our rules. If young people instead start congregating on dodgy message boards, there is pretty much nothing we can do besides playing whack-a-mole and banning them as they pop up.

Some of these sites host far, far worse than anything you’ll see on Instagram, by the way, and we can’t regulate them via Ofcom, because they’re not hosted here:

We've fined 4chan £450,000 for not having age checks in place to prevent children seeing porn on its site.

The Online Safety Act is concerned with protecting people in the UK. It doesn't require platforms to restrict what people in other countries see.

https://t.co/m2QUapVHjv pic.twitter.com/9rba57bHiq

— Ofcom (@Ofcom) March 19, 2026

Oh, and let’s not forget we could also create a national social media option which isn’t operating a profit-at-any-cost model. As whistleblower Frances Haugen revealed at a US Senate hearing:

I’m here today because I believe Facebook’s products harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy. The company’s leadership knows how to make Facebook and Instagram safer, but won’t make the necessary changes because they have put their astronomical profits before people.

Back to Save the Children, they finished:

If ministers want to make the online world safer, the answer is not simply keeping children off platforms. The focus must be on providing better support for parents by making platforms safer by design, tackling addictive and high-risk features such as stranger contact, live streaming, nudification tools and unsafe AI systems, so that children are not exposed to harm online.

Tech company failures

The Canary’s Maddison Wheeldon also reported on this topic, writing:

Don’t get me wrong: stronger restrictions on social media use by young people have become increasingly necessary given how toxic, abusive, and harmful many platforms have proven to be. But the repeated failure of tech companies to address these problems meaningfully means the dangers will not simply disappear because a ban is introduced.

All these dangers will still be there waiting for young people when they come of age. And it’s not like 18-year-olds aren’t vulnerable to abuse and harm. So really, all we’re doing is kicking the problem down the road.

Wheeldon also wrote:

Harmful content, disinformation, and online radicalisation will continue to exist, and young people will often find ways around restrictions. It is important to note, this policy has not been successful in Australia – a whopping 70% of parents in Australia have reported that their children are still on banned platforms – which hardly suggests this will have any impact on children’s safety.

In other words, the plan won’t address the underlying issue and it won’t even keep children out of harm’s way. So ‘save the children’ it will not.

Ulterior motives

The purpose of the ban seems to be twofold:

• Giving the impression that something is being done without inconveniencing the social media companies which are responsible for the problem.
• Introducing Digital ID by stealth.

In response, we all need to demand that the government grows a spine and regulates social media companies now.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Jeremy Corbyn has slammed Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s new National Security (State Threats) Bill, branding it an “alarming expansion of state power” that poses a “grave risk” to civil liberties.

The Bill is being fast-tracked through all three readings in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

The Bill would amend the National Security Act 2023 to introduce a power for the Home Secretary to designate bodies involved in “foreign power threat activity” by regulation, if they believe it is necessary for the safety or interests of the UK.

The National Security (State Threats) Bill is an alarming expansion of state power, and an escalation of the government’s chilling assault on the right to protest. pic.twitter.com/3izNLrvTL5

— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) June 17, 2026

Advertisement

Mahmood’s new bill is already at second reading in the House of Commons as of Wednesday afternoon.

Mahmood insisted there is a “need for speed” following recent events and “the threats the country faces”.

According to the policy paper on the bill:

Jonathan Hall KC’s report, published in May 2025, highlighted the limitations of the terrorism proscription regime in applying to state bodies and how the National Security Act 2023, as drafted, is less effective at disrupting proxies than foreign intelligence services.

This culminated in Jonathan Hall KC’s recommendation for the Government to introduce a ‘State Threats Proscription-like Power’, equivalent to terrorism proscription, which this power reflects.

Advertisement

Hall, as the Canary has previously reported, is the government’s terrorism tsar and has links to Israel. His father-in-law, Lord Dyson, is a patron of UK Lawyers for Israel.

Mahmood — Groups raise alarm

The backlash is not confined to Corbyn.

The International Development Committee, chaired by Labour MP Sarah Champion, has formally written to Mahmood expressing “serious concerns” that the Bill could have catastrophic unintended consequences for UK-funded humanitarian aid.

Grees4Palestine also posted on X, urging Green MPs, who have not spoken out against it, to do so.

Every MP, at every level should be opposing this authoritarian power grab!@EllieChowns @AdrianRamsay @carla_denyer @sianberry https://t.co/hFs3I4eKWr

— Greens4Palestine (@Greens4P) June 17, 2026

Ashok Kumar, Green Party member and  lecturer, said:

As the Bill hurtles towards its final Commons vote tonight — and likely enactment — it will mark a major authoritarian shift in British law.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

France’s internal security agency has ended its contract with AI war firm Palantir. Prime minister Sebastian Lecornu said French rival firm ChapVision would work with the General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI) moving forward.

Palantir remains deeply embedded in UK state infrastructure despite the Commons technology select committee calling for the government to divest on 4 June.

Politico reported on 16 June:

Palantir has faced criticism in Europe for its close ties to the U.S. administration, as the bloc seeks to wean off U.S. technology for everything from sensitive cloud to AI, social media and public software services.

ChapsVision was already involved in a partnership launched in 2022 to support security services including intelligence, customs and law enforcement.

Advertisement

Politico also reported that Germany had chosen ChapsVision over Palantir.

However, Palantir said the DGSI deal “remains fully in force” and:

continues under the existing contractual commitments and in full compliance with the highest standards of security, data protection, regulatory compliance and transparency.

Palantir: UK must divest too

In their 4 June report, the UK Science, Innovation and Technology Committee urged the government to:

exercise the 2027 break clause in the NHS Federated Data Platform Contract with Palantir and either develop an in-house replacement or seek an alternative UK provider.

The UK military, police, NHS and, allegedly, the Telegraph newspaper have started to use Palantir technology. The firm is also involved in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and maintains a permanent desk in southern Israel. Trump’s paramilitary immigration operations also use the firm’s gear.

The Canary reported on 2 June that UK officials are even using Palantir software to decide what Palantir technology to buy to fight future wars.

And as the Canary reported on 20 April, Palantir’s ‘manifesto’ is a collection of far-right tropes more suited to a far-right manosphere podcast than a multinational arms firm.

Green Party peer Natalie Bennett posted on X that the UK should follow the French example:

#PalantirOut – if the French can do it surely we can toohttps://t.co/2iY8fDjdP7

— Natalie Bennett (@natalieben) June 16, 2026

Entrepreneur Arnaud Bertrand warned:

ALL countries currently using Palantir should do the same: you are, quite simply, not a sovereign country if you let your national data infrastructure depend on the goodwill of a company with such a clear political agenda.

At this stage this isn’t even a sovereignty question, it’s a sanity test.

Advertisement

Wow, this is a huge and – rare for France these days – a genuinely good move: France's intelligence services (DGSI) are terminating their contract with Palantir in favor of a domestic alternative (source: https://t.co/TEoJxh1Z3h).

I posted about this multiple times. See post… https://t.co/J7vTbPQc8G pic.twitter.com/aAmMmHXphn

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) June 16, 2026

The current UK government has cosied up with Palantir despite numerous criticisms. France and Germany have now divested. Keir Starmer must be pressured to follow suit. A genocide-linked death firm should have no foothold whatsoever in the UK. And these European examples demonstrate there is no need to give it one.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link