Politics
Mandelson helped ‘dump’ Labour candidates before 2024 election
A Labour Party whistleblower has confirmed to the Canary that the disgraced Epstein associate Peter Mandelson, alongside then Director of Campaigns Morgan McSweeney, helped to vet Labour candidates for the 2024 general election.
Mandelson: the scandal continues
I have been investigating McSweeney’s operations for the last six months, and have personally heard accounts from several party insiders of widespread corruption in the run-up to the election, with local candidates systematically dumped in favour of Mandelson-McSweeney picks with no apparent connection to the area.
Furthermore, I was contacted by a former Labour MP who served as a frontbencher under Ed Miliband. He claims that Mandelson and McSweeney worked together to “get rid of” him. He added:
Everyone has overlooked Megan McCann, [McSweeney’s] former due diligence officer. She is his Achilles heel.
Megan McCann told me at a famous curry house meeting that when she had finished doing in candidates or getting them through, she built a dirty dossier on every MP. McCann takes instructions from McSweeney.”
As it emerges that Peter Mandelson assisted McSweeney in building a covert network within the Labour Party to ensure their positions became policy, MPs who have defended the Epstein associate for so long are now moving to distance themselves.
We now know that as Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson passed classified government information to likely Israeli intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein, even messaging the notorious paedophile on the day former Prime Minister Gordon Brown “finally got him to go.” But Mandelson had two deputies at the time, assisting him in his work: David Lammy and Pat McFadden.
Last year, Lammy, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, vehemently defended the appointment of Mandelson as US Ambassador, saying that he was “a man of considerable expertise”. Not words many of us would use for a person who described a convicted paedophile as their “best pal”.
Things get murkier when we take into account David Lammy’s 2014 failed London mayoral nomination bid.
Murky
His campaign was led by a former chair of Labour Friends of Israel, David Mencer, who went on to become a spokesman for the Israeli government. You may have seen Mencer on television in recent months, defending the most heinous crimes of the Gaza genocide.
Life-long Israel lobbyist Trevor Chinn donated £30,000 to Lammy’s the short-lived mayoral campaign. Chinn has funded both Conservative and Labour Friends of Israel throughout his life, and was personally awarded for “service to the state of Israel” by Israeli President and genocidaire Isaac Herzog.
But Chinn was also a director and major funder of Morgan McSweeney’s “Labour Together Ltd.” outfit. When McSweeney was found to have concealed £739,492 worth of donations to Labour Together, one of his excuses was that he trying “to protect Trevor”.
Another of Lammy’s financial backers is Lady Woodford-Hollick, the wife of Labour peer Clive Hollick. Clive Hollick was another funder of the Labour Together project, but he also previously served as a Special Adviser to Peter Mandelson.
From acting as his deputy in 2008 to defending him in interviews last year, the question needs to be asked: what did David Lammy know about the Mandelson-Epstein communications?
The McFadden link
Peter Mandelson’s other deputy during his tenure as Business Secretary was Pat McFadden. McFadden has been described as “the most powerful Labour politician most have never heard of”. He initially worked on Tony Blair’s 1997 election campaign alongside Peter Mandelson and Alistair Campbell.
In 2008, he was made Mandelson’s right-hand man. Indeed, in a fawning article printed by the Guardian in September 2023, Mandelson waxes lyrical on his former assistant, saying: “Pat has seen it all. He is a walking encyclopedia of political and policy knowledge, and experience in government.” But had McFadden “seen” Mandelson’s communications with Epstein?
During the 2024 general election campaign, McSweeney and McFadden’s desks were “right in the middle of the room” at Labour HQ. His wife, Marianna McFadden, was already McSweeney’s no. 2. Mandelson said that McFadden and McSweeney would complement each other, opining that “Pat is cautious…[whereas] Morgan is a hard-driven street fighter.” High praise all round from the Epstein-informant.
Megan McCann is now a Special Adviser to Labour Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds. Like former Mandelson deputy Pat McFadden, Reynolds is also a vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel, and both men have travelled on LFI-funded delegations. In 2019, Reynolds even accepted a £100 donation directly from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Israel connection and Labour Together
Recently, Starmer tabled an amendment to the motion to release the Mandelson Files, calling for an exemption for “papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations”. The amendment was signed by the PM and three other Labour MPs. Jonathan Reynolds was one of them.
Another signer of the failed amendment was fellow LFI supporter and Chief Secretary to the PM, Darren Jones. Jones, who received over £57,000 in donations from Labour Together, recently said that Starmer picked Mandelson “because we want to do things differently”.
The third signer of the amendment to restrict the release of the Mandelson Files was Nick Thomas-Symonds. Thomas-Symonds received £35,521 from Labour Together.
Before working for Reynolds, McSweeney’s former “due diligence officer” Megan McCann was on the staff of Labour MP Oliver Ryan. Another suspected McSweeney-Mandelson “pick”, Ryan received £10,000 from Labour Together.
Tom Rutland, the new MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, was another member of Labour Together’s “£10k club”. A pattern is coming to the fore: the Mandelson-McSweeney cabal used not only Excel spreadsheets, but also the financial weight of Labour Together to ensure those loyal to them got elected.
Mark Sewards also received £10,000 from Labour Together. Last August, Sewards became the first Member of Parliament to create an “AI version of himself” to communicate with constituents, a disturbing move condemned by many for its potential detrimental effects on many of the most vulnerable in society.
Recently, Sewards travelled to meet with Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Last November, her was announced as the new parliamentary chair of Labour Friends of Israel after previously accepting an LFI-funded trip to occupied Palestine in May 2025. These are the individuals waiting in the wings for Starmer’s downfall.
Tony Blair as well
Another of the new crop of Labour MPs is Georgia Gould, a member of the Jewish Labour Movement who previously served on Camden Council. Whilst there, fellow Camden Labour councillor + JLM member Izzy Lenga posted a photograph on Facebook in which she is wearing an Israeli military uniform, holding an automatic weapon and draped in an Israeli flag. The photograph was subsequently deleted.
Before moving into politics, Gould worked for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. She has previously been described as a “Blairite heiress who could be Labour leader one day” and a “close ally and mentee” of Alistair Campbell, the third wheel in the Mandelson-McFadden team behind Blair’s rise to power.
Marianna McFadden, Pat McFadden’s wife, had her own links to the infamous war criminal, having previously worked at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. She was later appointed as Starmer’s deputy campaigns director. The most unpopular Prime Minister ever is a continuation of Blair’s legacy in more ways than one.
Georgia Gould is the daughter of two “peers for life”. Her husband, Alex Zatman, was previously a Special Adviser to Liz Kendall, but is now a director at Teneo, a controversial lobbying firm with close links to the Clinton family. When Teneo was established in 2011, both Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were named as members of their advisory board. Clinton, who departed in 2012, had a yearly salary of $2.5 million.
In one leaked e-mail from the Jeffrey Epstein files, Ghislaine Maxwell writes to his “best pal” Peter Mandelson:
Pete, what is wrong. I am here for you. Call me – Clinton sd he will do what you want at the conference…PS Don’t be disgusting.
The e-mail is dated September 14th 2002. On October 2nd 2002, Clinton addressed the Labour conference in Blackpool. Ghislaine of course was the daughter of Robert Maxwell, the now deceased member of the British House of Lords, media baron, and, according to ex-Israeli intelligence operative Ari Ben-Menashe, Mossad asset.
Mandelson’s hands are all over the past 25 years
The extent of Epstein-informant Mandelson’s influence on government policy, and further revelations over the next days and weeks will be devastating for the Starmer regime and all those who defended him.
When Morgan McSweeney initially joined Labour in 2001, not long after his stint on an Israeli “kibbutz”, he was put to work on Mandelson’s “Excalibur” database, used to gather information on “internal political rivals”. The two have been close ever since, and the bullying tactics once employed by Mandelson are echoed by his political heir McSweeney today.
One prospective parliamentary Labour candidate in London, Sara*, spoke to me about being hauled in front of a now infamous three-person committee: Luke Akehurst, Sharma Tatler, and Anu Prashar. “I was given 5 minutes notice and then told I was not suitable, with no right to appeal”, she said.
Tom*, a Labour member from east London, told me about a culture of fear surrounding McSweeney: “Everyone is so scared to speak, and people are getting suspended for anything.” Sara told me: “You have to prove your loyalty by being mean and nasty…it’s a cesspit.”
The Mandelson-McSweeney-Starmer cabal has ruled Labour with an iron fist, but the house of cards is beginning to fall.
*Names have been changed to protect whistleblowers’ identities.
Featured image via the Canary
There have always been generational conflicts, but the chasm between baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) and other generations after them seems particularly hard to bridge.
Between changing values, hyper-polarised politics, and the radical shift in financial stability and opportunity, it doesn’t take a genius to see why some younger individuals find it challenging to relate to their elders.
As challenging as it may feel sometimes, there’s a simple solution for those wanting to experience more closeness with their boomer relatives and to understand them better: ask more questions.
Simple curiosity, by way of a thoughtful question, can make people feel heard and respected – and can also help change your perspective on why someone you love thinks the way they do, why they are the way they are. That dialogue may prove to be one of the most rewarding ones you undertake.
“In my work with families, I’ve noticed that older relatives are rarely waiting to be corrected,” Anna Marchenko, a licensed mental health counsellor and principal practitioner at Miami Hypnosis and Therapy, tells HuffPost.
“What they tend to want is to be understood in the context of the world they grew up in. These questions often slow conversations down in a way that makes real understanding possible.”
HuffPost asked family therapists to suggest some starter questions boomer relatives wish they’d get asked more – and they may appreciate having these conversations more than you could ever know.
‘What do you wish people asked you about more?’
If you’re new to opening this kind of dialogue with an older relative, the best start is often… to ask what they want to be asked. Yes, it’s a little like cheating, but this question in itself can lead the way to so much understanding on both sides.
This question “gets at what a parent may want to share more in their relationship with you,” Sarah Epstein, a marriage and family therapist who specialises in family dysfunction, told HuffPost. “Maybe they wish you asked about their health, their hobbies, their careers or their travels.”
For Epstein, this question can open the door to a new dynamic between your parent or older relative and you. “Asking shows an interest in not only having parents support you, but you to invest in them,” she said. “You can then lean into that more by asking about their current excitement and stressors.”
Remember: the point of asking questions in the first place is to allow your relative to feel heard, so open-ended and even apparently vague conversation starters work like a charm.
‘What was your family like when you were growing up?’
Imagine you were meeting a new friend for coffee. You are likely to ask questions about their upbringing. While you may already know the basics about your relative, like where they grew up and how many siblings they have, asking them about their family of origin is an amazing way to get to know them better – and even forge a new kind of relationship with them.
As well as the more general, “What was your family like?” Epstein also recommends asking more specific questions, such as, “What were your parents like?” or “Who in your extended family were you closest with and who were you not close with?”
“As their child, you only see their adult relationships, not the ones they experienced as children themselves,” Epstein said. “Asking these kinds of questions humanises parents to their children and other younger relatives, and gives parents a chance to tell their children more about themselves. It opens up possible vulnerable topics, like what felt good and what felt difficult in their upbringing and how they managed that.”
‘What did the world expect from you when you were young?’
This is an amazing question to get people to reflect on what the world’s expectations of them might have cost them – as well as any gifts they might have brought.
When asked this question, “people usually talk about pressure rather than nostalgia,” Marchenko said. “They describe growing up fast, being needed early, and making tradeoffs that were not optional. It helps younger relatives see that many values were shaped by necessity rather than preference.”
This line of questioning may also naturally lead into other similar revelations from your older relative, such as how systems of power worked in the environment they grew up in and what beliefs their upbringing created that they may have challenged later in life, says Marchenko.
FG Trade via Getty Images
‘When you look at the world now, how does it feel to you?’
One of the greatest obstacles to creating mutually respectful relationships with our older relatives today is the stark difference in values and politics younger generations often have. But phrasing a question like this opens the door to curiosity rather than immediately creating defensiveness.
“This avoids debates about progress and invites reflection instead,” Marchenko said. “People speak about gains and losses at the same time, which allows disagreement without turning anyone into the problem.”
‘Is there anything you still feel responsible for passing on?’
“This reframes older generations as caretakers rather than obstacles,” Marchenko said. “The answers are usually less about advice and more about values, restraint, and hard-earned perspective.”
This is a great question because they may have previously avoided sharing their thoughts on this subject for fear of how they might be received. For you, hearing about how your relative views their potential legacy may also be eye-opening and perspective-shifting.
‘What feels good in our relationship right now? What doesn’t?’
In the same way that you may find some aspects of your relationship with your older relative difficult, they might too. If you can ask this question and receive the answer without getting defensive, the two of you might be able to work together to deepen the relationship and smooth over areas of discontent.
“When you ask straight out how the relationship feels, you can start to have open, honest discussions about how the relationship is going,” Epstein said. “It may turn out you each have things you love doing together, or discussing, that you can double down on. You may also identify things your relative has been feeling about the relationship that you can then work on together. The easiest route to clarity is gently, respectfully asking about the other person’s experience.”
It’s astonishing how many experts on international law there seem to be. They all seem to know it, chapter and verse assume that any action taken by the USA or Israel must, by definition, breach international law. And that tells you all you need to know about their motivations.
Of course they can never provide any detail of which clause of which treaty they are talking about. Quiz them and then they start spluttering about the UN. As if the UN is the arbiter of when a nation is justified in taking miliary action against another.
I make no pretence to be an expert in international law. Why would I? I’m not even a domestic lawyer, let alone an international one. I do know, however, that launching a military attack on one nation by another does not necessarily mean that it is illegal. Self defence and pre-emptive self-defence can be totally justified. Both Israel and the USA have been attacked by Iran, and Iran has been guilty of issuing almost daily bellicose threats to both countries with its leaders’ constant mantras of ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’. It is somewhat ironic that having continually chanted those words, Ayatollah Khomeini suffered ‘Death FROM America’.
I see some people arguing that all the Iranian regime wanted was peace and it was no threat to anyone. Seriously, that’s what some are saying, trying to keep a straight face at the same time. Iran has been a threat to both Israel and the USA ever since the 1979 revolution, yet some people seem to like ignoring the basic facts of history. A simple internet search provides all the evidence you need.
Article 51 of the UN Charter states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs…”. In addition, it can also be argued that an attack is justified if an attack is imminent and unavoidable. Any international lawyer worth their salt would be able to argue this is exactly the scenario here, given Iran’s current and planned ballistic missile capabilities.
Where there is more doubt is about the legality of targeting a head of state for assassination. International law leaves less room for interpretation here, but I still think there is a good case to argue, given Khameni was Commander in Chief and therefor the presidential palace, where he met his maker, was a justifiable military target.
The UK government’s response has been timid, tepid and embarrassing. As George W Bush said after 9/11: “You’re either with us, or you’re on the side of the terrorists”. Simplistic maybe, but sitting on the fence should never be an option for a country like Britain. Starmer did take a stance of sorts by refusing to let American bombers take off from Diego Garcia or RAF Fairford. All he has done since then is to call on Iran not to respond to the attacks and for things to de-escalate. How courageous.
If both the Australian and New Zealand prime ministers can issue statements of support and understanding for the US/Israeli actions, why can’t ours? After all, we currently hold the presidency of the UN Security Council, so it is surely important that we state our position clearly. Either we are for the action or we’re not. Both positions can be justified. Sitting on the fence and displaying the weakness of a wobbling jelly cannot.
The Prime Minister should come before the House of Commons tomorrow and state his position very clearly. Kemi Badenoch, Ed Davey, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage have all stated their positions very clearly. It’s about time Keir Starmer did the same, rather than hide behind the well-trodden path of saying ‘well on the one hand’. Show some leadership, Prime Minister.
On Trevor Phillips this morning, UK defence minister John Healey condemned ‘indiscriminate’ attacks on Bahrain by Iran. This is despite widespread reports confirming it was a US military base. However, Healey said nothing about the blatant indiscriminate attacks by Israel that have brutally murdered almost 150 women and children, bombing a girls’ elementary school in Iran.
Nevertheless, it’s no surprise as he seems perfectly happy to ignore the flagrant breach of international law in the US and Israel’s war of aggression on Iran. He even went so far as to suggest that the regime ‘lashing out’ in the Middle East is Iran.
Apparently murdering dozens of schoolgirls isn’t illegal in the eyes of our defence minister.
“When you get a regime like this [Iran], lashing out in the Middle East, indiscriminately and widely, hitting civilian as well as military targets”
This is the UK defence minister talking about an illegal and unprovoked attack *on Iran* pic.twitter.com/ghsUbGx8nM
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
John Healey: US-Israeli bombing campaign is a ‘positive action’
In the interview, Healey was asked about the legality and legitimacy of the unexpected attack by Israel and the US on Iran. He didn’t state it was legal, clearly wary to show that level of support, but notably said he didn’t disagree with Phillips that the act was ‘positive’. Unsurprisingly, Phillips failed to bring up the Israeli bombing of a girls’ school in Iran, most of those killed between the ages of 7 and 12.
The double standard is hard to ignore, as Saul Staniforth highlighted on X:
John Healey: “The answer to the question of, is the US action legal, that is for the US to set out & explain, its not for me as a defence secretary of the UK”
So its up to Russia to say whether its invasion of Ukraine was legal or not, & you don’t have an opinion, right? pic.twitter.com/72gUnKYwtf
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
As a result, it’s hard to avoid the painful reality that it appears John Healey either is undisturbed by the majority of those murdered being women and children in Iran on day one.
Or is his omission indirectly confirming the attack by Israel and supported by the US was ‘discriminate’ so deliberately? Given the advanced technology that has been on clear display from Israel in its brutal genocide on Palestine and acts of aggression on Lebanon, it’s incredibly hard to accept it as ‘accidental’.
Just hours after we reported the US is moving forward with a $260+ million sale of kits that make bombs more “precise,” Israeli forces have bombed a school, killing more than 80 people — with the help of “precise arming” https://t.co/VLSvd8DNn6 pic.twitter.com/odoVflLkex
— Prem Thakker (@prem_thakker) August 10, 2024
According to international law, the Israel-US attack on Iran represents an illegal, unprovoked and aggressive act. In light of that, Iran very much has the legal right to defend itself. This is why it is ever more crucial for western leaders to remember the rule of law to prevent this escalating even further across the region. After all, I can’t imagine a western leader would hold back if a girls’ school had been bombed on our own territory.
John Healey refuses to say if the UK will join the US & Israel in bombing Iran. I guess we don’t have a right to know if our govt is planning to take us to war.
And as for #trevorphillips calling bombing Iran a positive action rather than an offensive action. That says it all. pic.twitter.com/zpPdZYkk5h
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
.@ZackPolanski: The US & Israel attack is illegal and unprovoked, the defence secretary & the govt won’t condemn it, we have a PM who is incapable of standing up to Trump, and the worry is that we’ll be pulled into another illegal war.
Spot on. pic.twitter.com/EGFSnu0v1s
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) March 1, 2026
Selective condemnation
This should come as no surprise that our leaders seem reluctant to defend and uphold international law. They’ve done so ever since October 7th, 2023, refusing to step on the wrong side of the rogue US President.
We wrote yesterday about Thornberry’s surprise recollection of the rule of law, declaring the attack on Iran was ‘illegal’. Whilst it’s a positive development, it also highlights how selective western government officials are in determining legality of military campaigns conducted by allies.
Our own Joe Glenton wrote:
She’s not entirely wrong. The strikes are illegal and ill-advised. Their consequences are likely to be severe not just for the wider region, but also for the global economy.
But still, there are a couple of thorny issues we must first address.
Thornberry has herself previously defended Israel’s genocidal misconduct in Gaza. In 2024, when asked on BBC if Israel cutting off food and electricity in Gaza was “within international law”:
Thornberry, with a straight-face, said:
I think Israel has an absolute right to defend itself against terrorism…
One could be forgiven for thinking he meant Israel because it is the ONLY regime “lashing out in the Middle East indiscriminately and widely, hitting civilian as well as military targets”. https://t.co/PxYJvjZQUA
— Karyn Taylor-Moore (@TaylorMooreK) March 1, 2026
Let’s be clear, Donald Trump and the Epstein class that have enabled genocide in Gaza are now blowing up Iranian children and setting the Middle East on fire to enrich themselves and cover up their paedophilic crimes.
We need to build a mass movement to stop them.
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 28, 2026
We do not consent to WWIII
Thankfully, many more have been loud in their condemnation of these attacks and those who had been complicit in Gaza are stepping out of turn with their colleagues, such as Thornberry. Once again, as we saw with the genocide on Gaza, ordinary people are overwhelmingly able to understand the rule of law without a need to selectively apply it. This highlights that those who have power have precious little sense of principle.
As Zarah Sultana stated on X, we need a mass movement to stop the world careening into WWIII and we need that now.
Featured image via the Canary
When you decide to upload a photo on to your Instagram or social media, you will face a choice: Are you going to let the app see your entire camera roll or not?
Many of the apps that we use every day will ask if you want to grant the app full access to your phone’s images and videos ― and you should think twice before permitting this, no matter how convenient it is, privacy experts say.
“When you limit access to only select photos, you’re both … protecting yourself from accidentally uploading multiple pictures you do not intend, and ensuring that the app can’t access more than you want, either by accident or malicious intent,” said Thorin Klosowski, a security and privacy activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Your camera roll doesn’t just have fun photos from vacations and pictures of your families, it’s also a record of who you are and what you like. Many of us often take photos for verification that reveal our identities like passports and new credit cards. These are the kind of images scammers want to exploit. In 2023, researchers discovered that malicious apps were scanning users’ image galleries to hunt for crypto wallet access recovery phrases. Google and Apple later removed these apps from their stores.
milorad kravic via Getty Images
It’s definitely more inconvenient to search through albums to find that one photo you want to post instead of having the full library within an app, but that’s the point. That extra time you take to select one photo forces you to think about what exactly you want to share with an app that may compromise your privacy later.
Meta, in particular, has a long history of concerning privacy advocates. In 2022, Facebook gave police private messages of a mother and daughter facing criminal charges for allegedly carrying out an abortion.
“That’s an especially striking example of how Meta is willing to share data with law enforcement … to continue chipping away at Americans’ privacy and civil rights,” said Will Owen, communication director for the nonprofit Surveillance Technology Oversight Project.
Last year, a Facebook feature asked users to grant access to their phone’s camera roll in order to automatically suggest AI-edited versions of their photos. The pop-up prompt would ask: “Allow cloud processing to get creative ideas from your camera roll?” However, if users permitted this, they also opted into having their images and facial features analyzed by Meta’s AI ― which upset some users. This feature no longer appears available to users within Facebook. Meta did not respond to HuffPost questions about the status of this feature.
In general, you should always double-check what you’re letting an app see from your phone. On Facebook, you can do this by going to the Facebook app, choosing “Settings & Privacy” and then selecting “Camera roll sharing suggestions” within “Settings.” From there, you can toggle on or off the option to “Get camera roll suggestions when you’re browsing Facebook.”
Refusing to grant full access to any one app is one small way to stop yourself from sharing images you would regret later by accident or on purpose.
Klosowski said he’s seen “countless stories over the years of people just accidentally uploading their entire photo libraries to social media because of confusing prompts.”
When you refuse to grant your favourite social media app full access to your camera roll, it will take you more steps to find and select your preferred image, and this will be a bit more of a hassle. “I realise people find the photo picker cumbersome because the user experience is kind of awful,” Klosowski said.
“But a side effect is it also puts a little speed bump in front of you while you’re thinking about whether you should post that photo to begin with, which isn’t always a bad thing,” he continued.
Social media users have responded with blistering incredulity, outrage and bitter mockery to a US interviewer asking a spokesman why Iran is bombing US bases. His response:
Um, because you’re bombing us from those bases? What do you want me to say?
NBC news anchors asked Iran why it’s justifying attacks on American bases in the region.
“Um, because you’re bombing us from those bases? What do you want me to say? ” pic.twitter.com/P8pZU4L5Ix
— ᗰᗩƳᖇᗩ (@LePapillonBlu2) March 1, 2026
Could anything better sum up the dishonesty and stupidity of western media and the entitled arrogance of the US? Even US respondents thought so too:
OK, the person who asked that question – are they a certified fucking idiot? If not, they are a certified, fucking idiot! Lord help us from all these certified fucking idiots.
— IAmMe (@IAmINTJ1) March 1, 2026
Who writes these dumbass questions?
— Michael J Box (@okanaganchild) March 1, 2026
Which right wing oligarch owns NBC.
— Robert Beattie🇦🇺🌏🌊💙🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🇪🇺🇨🇦🇵🇦 (@beattiers_1958) March 1, 2026
Seriously? That was a fucking question? I guess they think all countries should just let us bomb them and not fight back?
— Turboe4truth 🇺🇸🇺🇸🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🇺🇦🇺🇦 (@turboe4truth) March 1, 2026
Others pointed out how the idiot question entirely fits within the usual western ‘mainstream’ media framing of western imperialism and aggression:
— Varangian of the South Seas (@SouthVarangian) March 1, 2026
— V a n a m o n d e 🌙 (@Vanamonde5) March 1, 2026
Which right wing oligarch owns NBC.
— Robert Beattie🇦🇺🌏🌊💙🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🇪🇺🇨🇦🇵🇦 (@beattiers_1958) March 1, 2026
They are pro-Israel just like our shitty government. What the fuck kind of question is that to even ask? Like, how can anyone watch this shit and take it seriously?
— Blayzn Baddie 💋🌹💨 (@BlazynBaddie) March 1, 2026
Teleprompter: why Iran attacks civilian targets in the region gaining new enemies while being totally hammered by 🇮🇱 🇺🇸?
Anchors….🤯 pic.twitter.com/jZbCM0iWQl— Don Pedro (@DonPedro_s) March 1, 2026
That news anchor is trying to whip up some manufactured consent. They know the truth but is trying to get Iran to say something they can spin. 🙄
— a succulent bread sandwich meal (@BeefFace80) March 1, 2026
The propaganda in the mainstream media is astounding.
— Alina 🌻 (@alinamercedes) March 1, 2026
But among the many sane respondents, just a few demonstrated that some parts of the US population are no less stupid or blinkered than the media that spoon-feeds them this nonsense. Some were outraged that a spokesman from Iran should be interviewed by US media at all.
Others thought they were being clever by claiming the bombers had come from ships, not from those US bases the ships use. As if in war, you only get to retaliate against the parts of your enemy that are directly involved.
Canary readers please, if you’re ever in a fight and someone punches you with their right hand, you can only hit back on that same right hand — anywhere else is not fair play.
Still others just demonstrated how lacking a gag reflex they are when it comes to swallowing MAGA BS:
That news anchor is trying to whip up some manufactured consent. They know the truth but is trying to get Iran to say something they can spin. 🙄
— a succulent bread sandwich meal (@BeefFace80) March 1, 2026
They’re not – the bombs came from the ships
— Sukicee88 (@sukicee8857454) March 1, 2026
The US didn’t launch ANY of the attacks from bases in the region, because we were told a week ago we couldn’t use them by the countries they are located in.
— Steve Boyette (@im_plane_crazy) March 1, 2026
And others pointed out how the US allows itself to be led by the nose by the one actual nuclear-armed rogue state in the region:
The US didn’t launch ANY of the attacks from bases in the region, because we were told a week ago we couldn’t use them by the countries they are located in.
— Steve Boyette (@im_plane_crazy) March 1, 2026
The US didn’t launch ANY of the attacks from bases in the region, because we were told a week ago we couldn’t use them by the countries they are located in.
— Steve Boyette (@im_plane_crazy) March 1, 2026
You can be anti-trump without necessarily siding with terrorist Iran
— kanagasomu (@gosumabrigade) March 1, 2026
Two corrupt states with nuclear weapons and idiots and liars for bosses and mouthpieces are threatening one that is trying to exist flanked by the nuclear armed idiot-liars. One televised interview question was all it took to (again) put a spotlight on it.
Featured image via the Canary
Politics
Healey Confirms UK Only Acting Defensively Despite Iranian Attacks on British Servicemen and Cyprus Base
Healey Confirms UK Only Acting Defensively Despite Iranian Attacks on British Servicemen and Cyprus Base
Healey: British Government Now Considering Raising Terrorist Threat Level
Exclusive footage provided to Skwawkbox direct from migrant workers in Doha, Qatar shows large fires from Iranian missile strikes — and continuing barrages overnight from 28 February into the early hours of 1 March 2026.
Iran continues to strike US bases in Doha and Bahrain in retaliation for illegal and unprovoked US and Israeli attacks on its people:
While the air defences in Qatar appear to intercept some of the barrage, other missiles are clearly getting through. The US has tried to deny significant damage to its bases, but at least some of its radar facilities in the region have been destroyed.
Featured image via the Canary
President Donald Trump’s overnight strikes are forcing a hypothetical debate into reality.
And a president with extraordinary control over his party’s base will test how far his supporters will follow him on an issue that polling showed divided his coalition.
Just half of 2024 Trump voters, 50 percent, supported military action in a POLITICO poll last month — but 30 percent opposed it. Those fractures, combined with largely unified opposition from Democrats, meant Americans broadly did not want an attack on Iran.
In the January POLITICO poll, nearly half of Americans, 45 percent, said the United States should not take military action in Iran; fewer than one-third, 31 percent, said it should. An Economist/YouGov poll conducted last weekend similarly found broad public opposition to military action in Iran.
The stakes are particularly high for a Republican Party already staring down a difficult midterm landscape, where even small defections from their winning 2024 coalition could carry outsized consequences.
Part of the challenge for Trump is that support for military intervention in Iran was strongest among Trump’s base — and far weaker outside of it. A 61 percent majority of Trump voters who self-identified as “MAGA Republicans” said they support military action, according to The POLITICO Poll conducted Jan. 16 to 19, when Trump was ramping up his rhetoric against Iran but an outright attack remained hypothetical. That’s much higher than the 42 percent of Trump voters who do not identify as “MAGA” who said the same.
That leaves Trump navigating an evolving issue where support within his coalition — at least before the strikes — was real but not overwhelming and where overall public opposition outweighed support.
Democrats were largely unified. Two-thirds of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 said the U.S. should not intervene in Iran, while just 18 percent said it should, the POLITICO survey conducted by Public First found. The Economist/YouGov found 76 percent of Democrats opposed an attack. That Democratic unity is a warning sign for the GOP: It means that before the strikes, there were not enough pro-intervention Democrats to offset the anti-intervention Republicans.
Trump has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to reshape Republican public opinion, bringing his voters along on issues including trade and foreign policy. Whether that pattern holds here may depend on how the conflict unfolds.
“The political risk depends on the outcome,” Michigan-based Republican strategist Jason Roe told POLITICO. “If we break Iran without terrorist attacks coming to America or harm coming to allies in the region, it will be a political win for Trump. … If this expands into a protracted conflict, or ends up with troops on the ground, it will be a liability.”
That dynamic underscores the broader tension inside the modern GOP — a party base deeply loyal to the president and largely unified around an “America First” prerogative, now being tested by his own foreign policy decisions.
The divide also illustrates the longtime debate within the Republican Party between the hawks favoring a more aggressive posture on the world stage and those skeptical of intervention.
Mercedes Schlapp, a senior fellow at the Conservative Political Action Conference, said the length and severity of conflict could determine how Trump’s MAGA base responds.
“I think that the MAGA base will make it very loud and clear to the President that they will not necessarily agree, if it becomes a situation that it becomes a prolonged war,” she said on C-SPAN’s Ceasefire earlier this week.
Polling was already showing early signs of skepticism about overseas entanglements, including among Republicans. A February POLITICO Poll found that 47 percent of Americans said the U.S. government is too focused on international issues and not focused enough on domestic ones, while roughly one-quarter said it is striking the right balance.
The question did not reference Trump directly. Even so, 41 percent of his 2024 voters said the U.S. government is too focused on international issues, including about half — 49 percent — of Trump voters who do not consider themselves MAGA Republicans.
Those non-MAGA Trump voters are especially important for the GOP heading into November, and the president’s ability to overcome their initial opposition could prove crucial to maintaining control of Congress. Otherwise, if they swing back to Democrats — or sit out the midterms — Trump’s base alone is not enough to carry his party to midterm successes.
Researchers increasingly think that our Circadian rhythm, or body clock, matters more to our sleep than we realise. In fact, one study suggested our internal rhythm might matter more than sleep duration when it comes to feeling rested.
And in an Australian paper, which was published in Sleep Medicine, researchers found that people who struggle with racing thoughts that keep them up at night seem to have differences in their Circadian rhythm.
“Unlike good sleepers, whose cognitive state shifted predictably from daytime problem-solving to nighttime disengagement, those with insomnia failed to downshift as strongly,” the study’s lead researcher, Professor Kurt Lushington, said.
Why might people with racing thoughts at night have different body clocks?
In this research, scientists placed 32 adults (half of whom had insomnia; the other half were healthy sleepers) in an environment with as few external body clock cues as possible.
They were placed in a bed in a dimly-lit room for 24 hours, with carefully-measured food and activity. This was done to isolate the participant’s Circadian rhythms.
The scientists noticed that, even with no factors like sunlight, most participants’ body clock worked roughly in tandem in the daytime: their mental acitivty was highest in the morning and tapered off in the afternoon.
But among the insomniacs, whose racing thoughts kept them up at night, some differences were noted later on.
Not only was their “cognitive peak” – the time at which their mind was busiest – 6.5 hours later, on average, than those without insomnia, but, Dr Lushington said, “Their thought patterns stayed more daytime-like in the nighttime hours when the brain should be quietening”.
Sleep, he added, is “about the brain disengaging from goal-directed thought and emotional involvement.
“Our study shows that in insomnia, this disengagement is blunted and delayed, likely due to circadian rhythm abnormalities. This means that the brain doesn’t receive strong signals to ‘power down’ at night.”
Is there anything I can do to stop my brain racing at night?
According to study co-author Professor Jill Dorrian, this research could help to guide insomnia treatments which focus on sufferers’ body clocks in the future.
“These include timed light exposure and structured daily routines that may restore the natural day-night variation in thought patterns,” she said (sleep experts have previously recommended getting some outdoor morning light if you can, as this helps to regulate our Circadian rhythm).
Additionally, Professor Dorrian ended, “Practising mindfulness may also help quieten the mind at night”.
Can Claude AI Audit a Financial Model? | Testing CFI Modeling Standards in Excel
I visited an award-winning pub and found a peaceful oasis on a busy city road
Minnesota Lawmakers Propose Statewide Ban on Crypto ATMs Amid Surge in Elder Fraud Scams
-
Sports6 days agoWomen’s college basketball rankings: Iowa reenters top 10, Auriemma makes history
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Iris Top
-
Politics6 days agoNick Reiner Enters Plea In Deaths Of Parents Rob And Michele
-
Business5 days agoTrue Citrus debuts functional drink mix collection
-
Politics3 days agoITV enters Gaza with IDF amid ongoing genocide
-
Sports1 day ago
The Vikings Need a Duck
-
Tech12 hours agoUnihertz’s Titan 2 Elite Arrives Just as Physical Keyboards Refuse to Fade Away
-
Crypto World5 days agoXRP price enters “dead zone” as Binance leverage hits lows
-
Tech5 days agoUnsurprisingly, Apple's board gets what it wants in 2026 shareholder meeting
-
NewsBeat22 hours agoDubai flights cancelled as Brit told airspace closed ’10 minutes after boarding’
-
Business7 days agoLaw enforcement kills armed man seeking to enter Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, officials say
-
NewsBeat4 days agoCuba says its forces have killed four on US-registered speedboat | World News
-
NewsBeat1 day agoThe empty pub on busy Cambridge road that has been boarded up for years
-
NewsBeat4 days agoManchester Central Mosque issues statement as it imposes new measures ‘with immediate effect’ after armed men enter
-
NewsBeat6 days ago‘Hourly’ method from gastroenterologist ‘helps reduce air travel bloating’
-
Tech7 days agoAnthropic-Backed Group Enters NY-12 AI PAC Fight
-
NewsBeat18 hours agoAbusive parents will now be treated like sex offenders and placed on a ‘child cruelty register’ | News UK
-
NewsBeat7 days agoArmed man killed after entering secure perimeter of Mar-a-Lago, Secret Service says
-
NewsBeat5 days agoPolice latest as search for missing woman enters day nine
-
Business3 days agoDiscord Pushes Implementation of Global Age Checks to Second Half of 2026