Politics
North of Ireland’s First Minister on the emerging ‘Celtic alliance’
Michelle O’Neill doesn’t mince words: the first nationalist First Minister for the North of Ireland’s six counties sat down with Scottish paper the National. She had plenty to say about culture, reunification, Scottish independence, and the arrogance of Westminster.
Politics trickles through culture
Something huge is shifting in the North of Ireland.
You can feel it in the music, with establishment-baiting Belfast hip-hop trio Kneecap packing out venues across the world. You can see it on TV as Derry Girls made the six counties a cultural export. And you can measure it in the polling: 63% of people in the North now want a united Ireland inside the European Union.
Michelle O’Neill is not surprised. “Young people have it in spades,” she says of the new cultural confidence coursing through a nationalist Ireland.
That generation have a real, confident view of who they are, confident in their Irishness, very happy to assert it. They will not accept second-class citizenship.
Their parents endured it. Their grandparents endured it. This generation doesn’t plan on more of the same.
Unionists are losing the culture war
The confidence is undoubtedly real. But so is a hard, enduring, sometimes dangerous resistance to it.
O’Neill is unsparing about the forces lining up to suppress it. Political unionism, for example, she says:
blocked the Irish language at every turn.
The North still has no Irish language strategy. They fought for years just to get an Irish Language Act.
For those in political unionism trying to block that, they’re saying to young Irish Gaeilgeoirs [Gaeilge speakers] that you don’t have a place here.
What message does that send in 2026? It’s one of disrespect and intolerance and arrogance.
Young people, she says, have no truck with it. If Kneecap have done anything — they’ve certainly rocked the boat politically — it’s make Gaeilge very cool. And the new vibrancy on the streets is the proof.
British government fails yet another Palestine prosecution as Kneecap man goes free
Give us our Referendum
The cultural moment and the political moment are inseparable. When 63% of people in the North want reunification, the Good Friday Agreement’s constitutional logic demands a response.
Under its terms, the Northern Ireland Secretary holds the power to call a border poll when they believe a majority favours it. But Hilary Benn has refused. O’Neill is direct about what that refusal means.
Give us a referendum. If they’re so strong in the strength of the Union, what have they got to fear? Live up to the commitment.
She frames it, correctly, as a democratic right — one explicitly enshrined in the Agreement that ended thirty years of bloody conflict. Westminster signed that Agreement and should honour it.
An Ireland within Europe — that is the big prize.
(This is a sentiment certainly shared with the majority of SNP politicians and voters. Some 62% of Scots voted to remain in the EU, and that figure has likely only risen since. Brexit is still felt sorely in Scotland.)
But O’Neill knows the prosaic questions matter too. Taxes. pensions, healthcare, etc. She doesn’t want to simply dodge them. She flips them and, yes, perhaps weaponises them. But why shouldn’t she?
She’s right to point out, for example, that the six counties don’t have devolved fiscal powers of anything like the scope that Scotland has, which is still far below the scope of Westminster. (Although this scope is also limited by Rachel Reeves’ rigid OBR fiscal rules.)
Reunification, O’Neill argues, is an opportunity: a stronger economy, free education across the island, a roof over everyone’s head. The research backs her up too, where people in the Republic already earn more, have higher living standards, and face shorter healthcare waiting lists. (Not that the south is without problems, however — particularly Dublin’s notorious housing crisis.)
Untied Kingdom: anti-unionist parties take power across the Celtic nations
The new Celtic Alliance
O’Neill watched last week’s Scottish Parliament vote for an independence referendum with keen interest. She watched Westminster’s response with something closer to fury.
The very quick response from Whitehall was that they would completely disrespect and disregard that mandate. That’s a mandate from the people.
She sees Scotland, Wales, and the North of Ireland as part of the same story.
The recent elections in Scotland and Wales really add to that message. The people want self-determination, they want to take their future into their own hands.
The SNP and Plaid Cymru taking power in Edinburgh and Cardiff, in her words:
Demonstrates a real, seismic change in terms of our politics, collectively, here. …
The nations on the periphery of this broken union are moving. Westminster is not listening. That is no longer sustainable and it looks like major change is coming, sooner than later.
People are tired of the mess of Westminster. They’re tired of the disregard shown towards them. The austerity agenda, the revolving door of British prime ministers, Brexit — we have never been top of the agenda. We never will be. Our interests will never be served by Westminster.
That is not, despite SW1’s imagination, mere Celtic bitterness — it is serious political analysis. And it is shared, increasingly, from Belfast to Edinburgh to Cardiff.
O’Neill wants power-sharing in Stormont to work — she has even put her own party’s veto on the table to make institutions function. She can, she believes, make devolution work today while arguing unapologetically for constitutional change tomorrow.
But the direction of travel is clear. The nations are watching each other and drawing the same conclusions. Westminster’s continued disregard built this moment — it has no one else to blame.
Featured image via Getty/Charles McQuillan
Five Just Stop Oil supporters who have served prison sentences of up to 15 months for planning an action at Heathrow airport that never took place have had their convictions upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Rosa Hicks, Adam Beard, Sean O’Callaghan, Sally Davidson and Hannah Schafer were among eight Just Stop Oil supporters convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance after standing trial before Judge Duncan at Isleworth Crown Court in March 2025.
A ninth supporter was acquitted and another pleaded guilty before trial. Of the nine convicted, five were given jail terms of up to 15 months, while the remaining four were given suspended sentences.
They were the first people to be jailed in this country for an agreement to take part in nonviolent direct action, where no actual damage or disruption resulted.
Heathrow Five raise questions over jury integrity
In separate appeals heard on 12 May, the five argued that their convictions were unsafe. This followed a report from one juror to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal that another juror had made internet searches about the defendants and the Just Stop Oil campaign and shared highly prejudicial and partially false information within the jury room.
The Appeal heard evidence about the inadequacy of the police investigation that followed the report of misconduct. In particular, the police returned to the suspect juror two electronic devices which were clearly relevant to the case, which compromised them as evidential sources, and made no meaningful efforts to access the suspect juror’s two iPhones. No credible explanation was advanced by the police for these investigative failings.
At a preparatory hearing ahead of the appeal and prior to the suspect juror’s search history data being obtained, the government’s barrister Paul Jarvis claimed that the juror who had reported the jury misconduct was lying despite there being an ongoing police investigation into the matter.
In a ruling on 5 June, three senior judges – Andrew Edis, Maura McGowan and Martin Griffiths dismissed all the grounds for appeal and upheld the conviction.
The appellants released the following statement:
We are sad that the Court of Appeal has chosen to uphold our convictions despite overwhelming evidence that something went very wrong in the jury room, but we are of course not surprised.
The outcome of our appeal today marks a growing trend of using the justice system to crackdown on people trying to hold the powerful to account, be that the fossil fuel industry or the companies selling arms to Israel.
The appeal judgement changes nothing. Last month was the hottest, driest May in the UK since records began and our government and institutions are still failing in their most basic duty to protect us.
Whilst a successful appeal would have come with some personal benefit, our appeal has revealed something much more consequential for the rule of law.
Our conviction was engineered by a Judge who directed the jury to ignore evidence related to the climate crisis, which the judge referred to as a matter of opinion.
This was despite undisputed evidence admitted in court, that global heating will have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity.
It’s not surprising if trust breaks down when judges actively mislead a jury. That is where the responsibility for juror misconduct lies.
In cases like ours, when it must be obvious to jurors that so much is being kept from them inside the courtroom it makes sense that they might go looking for clues outside.
Throughout the appeal process, there has been a series of delays and misdirections on behalf of the crown. Not only did the police lose key evidence but they made attempts to close the investigation into juror misconduct prior to vital evidence being obtained.
Perhaps most shocking of all, despite an ongoing police investigation into the matter, the lawyer for the CPS repeatedly claimed that the juror who reported the juror misconduct was lying. The police and Crown Prosecution Service maintaining their prosecutions at all costs is not justice.
We did not seek to blame any of the jurors who tried us. We want to thank the juror who came forward to blow the whistle on what happened in the jury room during our trial. They have shown courage and integrity, they didn’t have to speak up, but they did.
The Heathrow 10 were arrested on 24 July 2024, on the first day of the Oil Kills International Uprising to end fossil fuels.
During their trial the judge removed all legal defences from the jury’s consideration, ruled the climate emergency to be ‘irrelevant’ and forbade defendants from mentioning that a jury has a right to acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience.
The defendants were not permitted to bring expert witnesses on international law or climate science or to show the jury videos they recorded of themselves speaking before the action, nor were they allowed to read the quotes from news articles about their arrests and subsequent remand to prison.
Featured image via Just Stop Oil
By The Canary
The post ‘The elites have never stopped sneering since’ appeared first on spiked.
Labour MP Jess Asato has announced that she has initiated a legal test case against Elon Musk’s xAI. The case will take to task Grok AI’s creation of fake, pornographic and derogatory content seen in January.
Attracting particular condemnation is the fact that the AI tool produced a demeaning, offensive and frankly, dangerous video which showed the MP:
being chloroformed and prepared for sexual assault.
Grok AI and its prolific creation of sexualised content, including of young children, has prompted widespread anger as it became clear the business model was happy to make money out of the most abusive and sinister views held by paedophiles, perverts, and rapists.
It then comes as little surprise that others affected by Grok have now joined the legal test case against Musk following Jess Asato’s decision to confront the billionaire head-on.
The legal case specifically argues that xAI violated data protection law and breached Asato’s private information when it permitted the images to be created.
New claimants seek to sue Elon Musk’s xAI after Labour MP’s test case — dave lawrence
Jess Asato’s lawyer says others want to take action over demeaning sexualised material created by Grok AI toolhttps://t.co/XYOs5Lutlw
(@dave43law) June 5, 2026
Musk faces another legal challenge
Back in January, Musk’s AI tool Grok generated approximately 3 million sexualised pictures in less than two weeks, which researchers said:
became an industrial-scale machine for the production of sexual abuse material.
One concerning aspect to this is the fact that the AI tool had no issues with requests such as “remove her clothes” or “put her in a bikini”. In reality, the tool will generate almost anything a user asks for – including these sexualised images of women without consent. Subsequently, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) launched an inquiry into Grok AI and the images it has produced.
Justifiably, many women feel their privacy is being undermined. After all, even when victims know the images are fake, they can still look real enough to humiliate, demean, and leave people feeling exposed. Let’s face it, if it didn’t, these kinds of men wouldn’t be so interested.
Moreover, its creation of child sexual abuse content drives home the fact that this tool has played into incredibly sinister, pervasive, and perverted mentalities amongst abusive men. When women and girls already face rising levels of abuse and violence, this increased threat financed by a soon-to-be trillionaire is a worrying sign for the direction of travel in the West.
Therefore, it is restoring to see victims of this abuse stepping forward to hold the tech giant to account for the abuse he has fostered and facilitated.
The legal director of the law firm AWO, Ravi Naik, confirmed to the Guardian he is acting for “multiple individuals”, and stated on the firm’s website:
At its heart, this case is about a single principle – that AI developers must answer for the way they design their tools. Where there is a wrong, the law must provide a remedy – and that is as true of artificial intelligence as of anything else.
No one should be subjected to abuse like this, and no one should have to instruct a lawyer to get images like these taken down.
This content existed because of design choices made by xAI, and technology of this kind does not simply happen. It is built, and it is built deliberately. Grok was designed in a way that permitted the creation of non-consensual, sexualised and misogynistic images of women – and that outcome was a choice, not a glitch.
This is one of the first claims to test liability for the design of an AI system, and we hope it will make it clear to AI developers that safety cannot be an afterthought.
Asato: ‘Literally strips your clothes off and makes you vulnerable’
Asato has spoken to the “psychologically distressing” impact it has as a woman to have fake nude images made without consent, and insists that her legal challenge is necessary to ensure that AI companies have a responsibility in what it’s products enable, stating:
Grok created deepfake pornography and sexualised content which harmed thousands of women and children.
Its ability is not an accident, nor misuse, it is a design choice by its creators. In launching this case, I am pursuing accountability for those choices.
I hope this legal action also gives voice to the thousands of victims in the UK, women, girls and horrifically even children, who were abused by Grok. I am calling on anyone in the UK who experienced the misuse of their image or video by Grok to come forward and support our legal claim.
This escalating abuse targeting Asato came after she called for the introduction of an anti-nudification act to combat these sexualised attacks.
Let’s be honest, serious – and thus proven – concerns exist that men will misuse this AI tool if allowed to. Even if Musk insists that is not its intended purpose, creeps can still exploit it to create and spread harmful material under the radar. Especially when its creators do nothing to stop it and instead, draw profits from such sordid interests.
Going further, a particular worry is that when tech platforms don’t properly guard against this kind of pervasive use, it starts to normalise it. And once that happens, it becomes easier for sexualised harassment and abuse to spread, escalate, and feel even more acceptable online. Needless to say, as we see generally in society, what becomes normalised online soon becomes normalised in daily life.
As a result, women, girls and children are left increasingly exposed to harm – and one of the world’s most powerful men is enabling it.
The government must be made to take REAL action
Whether Musk will take heed of this legal challenge awaits to be seen – he didn’t seem concerned back in January when this happened. In fact, he shared hateful abuse fired at Asato after she objected to the harm caused by the ‘bikinification’ trend. Signalling his escalatory influence, that is when the deepfake video showing her being chloroformed was produced and thus replied to Musk’s retweet.
It remains to be seen whether the government will show any real backbone in holding tech giants like Musk to account. Even while criticising his “extreme personal views”, Peter Kyle still found time to describe him as a “successful innovator and commercialiser of innovation”. Last year, he even stated the government must “respect and engage with” Musk who he called an “unignorable force”.
That kind of mixed messaging – condemning on one hand while praising on the other – does little to suggest ministers are prepared to take on real power.
Once again, a powerful and controversial figure gets wrapped up in talk of being “complex”, rather than being judged on the real-world impact of his actions. If the government keeps talking out of both sides of its mouth, it’s hard to see how it will ever seriously rein in Big Tech.
Featured image via Getty/Joe Raedle
The post Henry Nowak: why we should rage against two-tier policing appeared first on spiked.
Green Party Leader Zack Polanski is under fire for calling for potential British-Israeli dual national war criminals to be investigated. The Jewish News platformed commentators who conflated criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism over Polanski’s signing of a Declassified UK letter calling for basic accountability.
Polanski, who is Jewish, signed the 26 May letter. Declassified and the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians are running a campaign to force police to investigate Brits who served in the Israeli military during the genocide. You can read the Canary’s report here.
The campaign letter reads:
We, the undersigned, are politicians, lawyers, campaigners, human rights defenders, journalists, and concerned members of the public who believe the public interest is best served by monitoring the entry of British-Israeli dual national citizens into the UK and investigating potential links to war crimes, in cases where they have served in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).
Over 2000 Brits have served in the genocide, yet UK police have refused to investigate. The letter makes two recommendations:
Implement a disclosure requirement regarding service in the Israeli military, subjecting travellers with Israeli travel documents or arriving from an origin of Tel Aviv airport to potential secondary screening at ports of entry under domestic war crimes inadmissibility rules and/or adjusted visa policies.
Conduct robust, impartial and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, in compliance with the obligation to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes.
Conflating accountability with antisemitism
Jewish Leadership Council Public Affairs Director Russell Langer told Jewish News:
At a time of rising antisemitism, it is particularly disturbing to see calls for the monitoring of dual British-Israeli citizens. Demonisation of Israelis is not a criticism of a foreign government but the targeting of a group of people for their nationality.
Such hatred risks making British Jews, many of whom have close family and social connections to Israel, a target for hostility and violence.
A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies said:
This petition seems to be another attempt to demonise Israelis and promote an atmosphere of intimidation against British Jews.
It is an example of what the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Jonathan Hall KC has described as the ignoring of conventions against the promotion of collective hatred against a nationality in the case of Israelis.
The spokesperson added:
The call of those who have signed it, including Zack Polanski, to treat people as potential criminals just because of their passport is a unique and wholly unacceptable form of discrimination.
The conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism – and with a general critique of the settler-colonial state of Israel – has always been a scurrilous thing. Almost three years of genocide has diminished the power of this attack line. Previously indifferent publics now understand the colonialist nature of the Israeli project and the roles of the US and UK.
Polanski has his shortcomings – the Canary isn’t shy about pointing them out – but on this the Green leader is absolutely correct.
Featured image via Getty/Ryan Jenkinson
By Joe Glenton
Far-right AI war firm Palantir has won yet another UK contract. This time the genocide-linked company’s software will manage guns, explosives, and even poisons held by the British state. The news comes as the UK’s tech committee urged the government to pull the plug on Palantir’s takeover of vast areas of UK infrastructure.
Tech website The Register reported on 4 June:
Palantir has secured a £9 million ($12 million) government contract to provide software for managing firearms licensing across the UK.
And:
The US spy-tech biz will also handle Home Office licensing for explosives, explosive precursors, and poisons. The contract covers a replacement for the National Firearms Licensing Management System (NFLMS), which has been in use since the mid-2000s.
This is despite London Mayor Sadiq Khan banning a major Palantir contract with the Met Police.
Palantir becoming embedded in UK
The Register found a government procurement notice which shows Palantir will “help”:
43 Police Forces in England and Wales record how they grant, renew, and revoke firearms licenses.
The contract — set to last up to ten years, including possible extensions — could also support Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) if required.
The procurement process was run by the Police Digital Service:
which is responsible for “coordinating, developing, delivering, and managing digital services and solutions”, according to its website.
The UK military, police, NHS and, allegedly, the Telegraph newspaper have started to use Palantir technology. The firm is deeply involved in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and maintains a permanent desk in southern Israel. Trump’s paramilitary immigration operations, ICE, 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.
Manosphere
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.
For example, Point 21 reads:
Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.
While Point 22 is a fascist-accented lament for Western white supremacist ‘culture’:
We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?
The march of these AI firms through the British state is deeply alarming. The company’s founders are tech-bro billionaires with a perverse and fascistic ‘civilisational’ worldview. They seek not only to enrich themselves, but to govern in a bid to save what they see as a ‘superior’ western, white supremacist civilisation. Divesting from their software is the very least that is required.
Featured image via Getty/Carl Court
By Joe Glenton
Fans attending the 2026 World Cup will not be allowed to bring reusable water bottles into stadiums. The latest restriction introduced by FIFA has sparked criticism and concerns about temperatures across the tournament’s hottest host cities. This year’s tournament features 48 teams for the first time. It will take place across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. As a result, several matches are expected to be played in high temperatures and humidity.
What has changed in stadium rules?
Under the new regulations, fans cannot bring reusable water bottles into venues. However, previously, spectators could carry transparent, empty plastic bottles up to one litre. The updated policy also bans cups, metal containers, and similar items.
FIFA says the move is part of a broader security framework. In a statement, the governing body explained that such objects could be used as projectiles, posing a danger to fans, players, and tournament staff. In a statement to Reuters, FIFA said it is committed to protecting:
the health and safety of all players, referees, fans, volunteers and staff.
FIFA also cited safety reasons, saying the ban is intended to reduce the risk of injury:
Outside bottles are already prohibited at several of these venues for safety considerations and FIFA is applying this consideration across its tournament stadiums.
Heat concerns at host cities
FIFA’s decision has raised concerns about conditions fans may face during matches in several host cities.
Temperatures in some locations are expected to reach the mid-20s Celsius, with periods of high humidity. Supporter groups and fan organisations have questioned whether restricting access to personal water bottles could make it harder for spectators to stay comfortable inside stadiums.
FIFA says it is working with local authorities and organising committees to put heat-management measures in place. They told Reuters that they’re work:
closely with each Host City Committee and local authorities on heat mitigation factors for fans traveling to the stadium, which can include resources such as misting stations, fans, hydration stations, cooling tents and more around the stadium footprint.
These include additional water stations, shaded rest areas, cooling fans, and spray zones positioned around stadium sites.
FIFA has also said that water prices inside stadiums will remain in line with those at other major sporting events.
FIFA fans hit back
Fan groups have slammed FIFA’s policy, including England’s “Free Lions,” who called the water bottle ban a blatant money grab so close to kickoff.
The group said they had previously been assured reusable water bottles would be allowed, and questioned the sudden reversal.
What next? Suncream banned and fans forced to buy it in stadiums?
For all of the effort they are going to with ‘drinks breaks’ for the players, this is such a strange, late change.
In all of our discussions, free water availability in stadiums was a key one and we were assured… https://t.co/cXjwQwhRLO pic.twitter.com/0XhGsHHECS
— Free Lions (@WeAreFreeLions) June 4, 2026
Speaking to the Guardian, Ronan Evain, director of Football Supporters Europe, called FIFA’s water ban “a real health risk,” warning that harder access to hydration raises the chances of heatstroke and dehydration. He also slammed the governing body for putting profits ahead of fan safety, calling the decision “appalling” and saying it:
shows the priority seems to be, again, to generate revenues. How immoral it is to [profit from] water in this situation when people’s health is at risk.
He also challenged the safety rationale, saying:
If they allowed it last year and originally for this tournament, I find the security argument a bit hard to believe […] water is unfortunately still seen as a commodity, but it’s not, it’s a matter of health. We don’t know how expensive a bottle of water will be inside the stadium because no prices have been published.
Featured image via Dan Mullan / Getty Images
By Alaa Shamali
Brighton-based Tony Greenstein is one of the best-known of the UK’s many Jewish anti-genocide activists. As a result, he is one of the most targeted by the Israel lobby’s attacks and smears – including by the UK government. And he has again been hit with one of the most insidious forms of financial attack: de-banking.
‘De-banking’ is a financial state and establishment terror weapon. It involves the summary closure of bank accounts, often under orders or pressure from government or influential groups. This is frequently used as a weapon to financially disable those who stand up for the Palestinian people against genocide, occupation and oppression.
Greenstein was first targeted in July 2025, when HSBC and one of its subsidiaries simultaneously decided to ‘review’ his account arrangements and unilaterally closed his accounts.
“Financial terrorism”
Now, both Greenstein personally and charities he helps run have been targeted simultaneously, by banking giant Santander. He told Skwawkbox:
Santander has just frozen my accounts and also that of the Brighton Trust and [of] Brighton Unemployed Workers Centre.
It is little short of outrageous and they haven’t even informed me what they are doing. It is financial terrorism
The bank provided no communication about its actions. Instead, Greenstein only found out the accounts had been frozen when he tried to access them. He does not know whether or how he or the charities will be able to access their funds.
Featured image via Getty/Leon Neal
By Skwawkbox
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. In Belfast, Home Office incompetence is threatening Nina Briggs, head of the Migrant Workers’ Union Northern Ireland, with deportation.
They insist that Briggs’ active appeal against the unfair Home Office decision does not exist. That is despite an immigration tribunal confirming the department submitted documents in her case in December 2025.
Briggs has spent the last 14 years living in Britain or the North of Ireland. Born in the US, she came to Britain to study at St Andrews University in Scotland back in 2012, at age 16. She subsequently entered into a relationship in which, she told the Canary, her partner subjected her to terrible domestic abuse. This resulted in physical injuries and severe post-traumatic stress disorder, which a GP and therapist said caused “permanent disability”.
Home Office ignores conclusive evidence of domestic abuse
The abuse resulted in Briggs returning to the US to seek treatment between 2018-2019. By the time she had fully recovered, COVID had hit. Travel restrictions during this period meant she was unable to head back to Britain or the north of Ireland. She eventually came to Belfast in 2021, under another student visa, this time for a PhD in intergroup contact and mending conflict at Queen’s University Belfast.
Ordinarily, anyone who stays legally in Britain and North of Ireland for 10 years continuously can be automatically granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). This gives the holder most of the rights of a British citizen, but without full citizenship. Briggs’ reasonable claim is that the period of her medical care in the US, along with the COVID timeframe, should count towards that 10 year period, on compassionate grounds.
Here’s where the malice part of the Home Office enters the picture. The department, tasked by successive sadists acting as home secretary, tries to find any way it can not to grant people the right to stay. In this case, they deemed Briggs’ evidence “not compelling”. She told the Canary:
This is despite having evidence about the domestic violence from a GP, therapist, witness statements, and testimony from a domestic violence shelter.
Briggs appealed, and the Home Office now claims, implausibly, that her case does not exist. She has now been left in what she refers to as “3C limbo”. This is in reference to Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971. Its terms should extend the rights of her last visa while her appeal is underway. However, because the Home Office say that appeal doesn’t exist, they have not granted her those rights. She said:
It means I can’t get housing. I can’t get health care, or legal aid. Nor can I self-employ or fundraise. I’m also facing a no-fault eviction, and Right to Rent checks prevent me from securing new accommodation.
Racist department prevent woman from attending family funerals
It’s a reminder of the cruelty inherent to Britain’s immigration system. That has been compounded by the rules preventing Briggs from leaving the country while stuck in this situation. If she did, the Home Office would rule that she had abandoned her case. This would effectively be an admission of guilt for the ‘crime’ of overstaying a visa. Such a finding would permanently affect her ability to travel.
During this period — which extends back to October 2024 — she has been unable to attend funerals for her grandmother, a cousin, an uncle, and several friends. Both her mother and stepmother have cancer.
Briggs has further grounds to request the right to stay. Despite being an accomplished data scientist who would be an asset to society here, the Home Office rejected her application for a skilled worker visa. She is bolstering her separate ILR application with evidence of her human rights work. This includes extensive efforts to combat human trafficking and modern slavery, areas the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) tends to fall short on.
‘High number of poor quality refusals’
As part of the efforts against modern slavery, Briggs has helped on investigations into children being dragged into criminality via racist pogroms led by loyalist paramilitaries. She told the Canary:
Unionist community leaders and politicians I’ve spoken to have been sympathetic to that work. It’s their community – they don’t want a whole generation of boys with their lives ruined due to getting a criminal record so early.
News of Home Office ineptitude won’t surprise anyone who follows the department closely. Free Movement have highlighted the “high number of poor quality refusals” as one of the “stand out problems of the asylum system”. The National Audit Office slated the Home Office for not having:
…a full understanding of how the Skilled Worker visa route is operating.
The department fails to trains its staff properly, and doesn’t have enough of them, resulting in huge backlogs on applications.
As a result of all this, combined with a dose of malice injected by the right, we risk losing the expertise and compassion of people like Nina Briggs.
Featured image via author
Most football matches are decided by small margins, but others are not. In fact, matches in the World Cup often feature remarkable scorelines not seen elsewhere. In such games, defensive structure can collapse, and goals accumulate quickly. Sometimes this happens through clear mismatches. At other times, it results from unusually open play. With the 2026 edition approaching in the United States, Canada and Mexico, a record 48 teams are taking part. This raises the bar. Uneven scorelines are all the more likely to appear, particularly when debut nations come up against established football powers.
Below are the highest-scoring matches in World Cup history, based on official FIFA records.
Nine-goal matches
Argentina 6–3 Mexico (1930) — This inaugural match showcased the drama that only the World Cup can deliver. Argentina defeated Mexico in a nine-goal contest.
Hungary 9–0 South Korea (1954) — Hungary produced one of the most one-sided wins in tournament history. They scored nine without reply.
West Germany 7–2 Türkiye (1954) — West Germany advanced comfortably with a seven-goal performance, during the play-off round.
France 6–3 West Germany (1958) — France finished third after a high-scoring match against West Germany.
Yugoslavia 9–0 Zaire (1974) — Yugoslavia recorded a nine-goal victory in the group stage. This stands as the most decisive result in any World Cup to date.
Ten-goal match
France 7–3 Paraguay (1958) — A ten-goal match played out during a tournament defined by Just Fontaine’s scoring record. Consequently, this World Cup fixture remains legendary.
Eleven-goal matches
Brazil 6–5 Poland (1938) — An open match ended narrowly in Brazil’s favour after a high-scoring contest typical of classic World Cup encounters.
Hungary 8–3 West Germany (1954) — Hungary’s attack overwhelmed West Germany in a group-stage meeting.
Hungary 10–1 El Salvador (1982) — Hungary recorded the largest winning margin in World Cup history.
Twelve-goal record
Austria 7–5 Switzerland (1954) — The highest-scoring match in World Cup history remains the 1954 quarter-final known as the “Battle of Lausanne,” which produced 12 goals. World cup historians often cite this match for its non-stop action and drama. Austria came from behind in a match defined by constant swings in momentum.
Despite the expanded 2026 format, no match has yet rivalled Lausanne’s 12-goal record — 2026 will tell.
Featured image via Richard Heathcote / Getty Images
By Alaa Shamali
Bishop Auckland man acting suspiciously arrested at court
New York passes bill banning prices based on personal data
SEC Builds Tokenized Securities Framework Guided by “Innovation Without Arbitrage” Principle
-
Business4 days agoJade Biosciences, Inc. (JBIO) Discusses Positive Interim Results From JADE101 Phase I Healthy Volunteer Study and Development Plans Transcript
-
Tech6 days agoSpaceX just won a second Golden Dome contract. This one is $4.16 billion.
-
News Videos7 days agoSHE IS KILLING XRP!!! WATCH URGENT AND ACT FAST
-
Sports3 days agoFrench Open 2026 results: Alexander Zverev beats Rafael Jodar and will play Jakub Mensik in semi-finals
-
NewsBeat7 days agoFIRST NIGHT REVIEW: Take That bring the Circus back to life in spectacular sun-soaked style
-
Business6 days agoIs the Spurs Phenom Already Better Than Prime Diesel?
-
Tech3 days agoCryZENx Releases Fresh Playable Content Deep Inside Jabu-Jabu for His Ocarina of Time Remake
-
Politics6 days agoThe House | Inside Andy Burnham’s Makerfield Campaign: “Nobody Thinks This Is In The Bag”
-
Crypto World8 hours ago
LBank Surpasses 25 Million Users Worldwide as AFA Partnership Continues to Drive Global Growth
-
Business3 days agoTrump Taps Housing Chief Bill Pulte as Acting Intelligence Director After Gabbard Exit
-
Entertainment7 days agoBruce Willis’ Generosity Resurfaces Amid His Dementia
-
Entertainment7 days agoWeak ‘Supergirl’ Box Office Tracking Amid Milly Alcock Backlash
-
Entertainment6 days agoOne of the Greatest Sitcoms of All Time Shoots Up Apple TV’s Charts 11 Years Later
-
Business6 days agoDemand Conditions Improve In Chemicals Sector In April 2026
-
Crypto World7 days agoMicroStrategy Moves $30 Million in BTC to Coinbase Prime: Is the Bitcoin Sell-Off Already Here?
-
Crypto World3 days agoSeagate (STX) Stock Surges to Record High on AI Boom and Legal Settlement
-
NewsBeat6 days agoEverything you need to know as Cambridge’s Strawberry Fair returns after cancelled year
-
Entertainment6 days agoBritney Spears Shares Troubling Update After Hard Year
-
Crypto World3 days ago
EU AI Data Center Project Faces Delays as Funding Gaps Grow
-
Business7 days agoUS-led AI investments risk capital destruction: Chris Wood
You must be logged in to post a comment Login