What Olympians can teach us about performance anxiety

Disgraced Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince, has finally been arrested in connection with revelations from the Epstein files.

Among those who have responded are the family of Virginia Giuffre. Giuffre accused Windsor of sexual abuse:

Statement from the family of Virginia Giuffre:

“At last.

Today, our broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty.

Advertisement

On behalf of our sister, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, we extend our gratitude to the UK’s Thames Valley Police for their… pic.twitter.com/bgtHZtb2qO

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) February 19, 2026

Nevertheless, it hasn’t escaped attention that the arrest is regarding misconduct in public office and apparently not in connection with Giuffre’s allegations.

Andrew arrest: ‘at last’

On 19 February 2026, Thames Valley Police arrested Andrew on suspicion of misconduct in public office. This came after they reviewed documents from the Epstein files which suggest he shared information from his time as a UK trade envoy with the late convicted paedophile.

Mountbatten-Windsor is currently in police custody amid searches of multiple properties as part of the criminal inquiry. The Epstein files have raised serious concerns about the scale of this sinister web of elitist men. This has prompted widespread demands for full transparency and accountability for sexual abuse against women and girls.

However, this pattern underscores how far more precedence is given to economic interests and institutional power over justice for victims and accountability for abusive men.

The statement from Giuffre’s family reads in full:

At last.

Today, our broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty.

Advertisement

On behalf of our sister, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, we extend our gratitude to the UK’s Thames Valley Police for their investigation and arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

He was never a prince.

For survivors everywhere, Virginia did this for you.

Virginia Giuffre

Virginia Giuffre accused Andrew of sexually abusing her when she was just 17 years old. She became a prominent advocate fighting against sex trafficking, in light of her own experience being sexually exploited by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She died by suicide in April 2025 leaving her loved ones and survivors across the world devastated and heartbroken. Giuffre’s push for accountability has been continued by advocacy groups across the West. Many have joined the call in demanding powerful men face consequences for the abuse they have evidently inflicted.

We wrote about Andrew’s arrest shortly after it happened:

If former royal, and mate of serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was hoping for any public sympathy after his arrest this morning – on his birthday – he’s going to be sorely disappointed.

The family of Virginia Giuffre, Andrew’s most well-known victim, welcomed the arrest as a sign that no one is above the law:

“At last, today, our broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty,” Giuffre’s family said in the statement given to CBS News.”

However, Windsor was arrested on suspicion of ‘misconduct in a public office’. Knowing the British state, this was more likely linked to his leaking of secrets to Epstein than his abuse of trafficked and potentially under-age girls. But the offence carries a potential life sentence, so there’s that.

Advertisement

Giuffre had long pursued seeing the suspected paedo-prince face accountability for his abuse against her. Obviously, Andrew has always denied these claims, which is no surprise as it’s damn rare to find a man actually hold his hands up in disgust at the abuse he has inflicted.

Because of this, she was denied the justice she deserved over the allegations against Windsor, after Epstein and Maxwell allegedly trafficked her to him. Giuffre also shared in her memoir even more sinister allegations against former Israeli PM Ehud Barak.

We wrote in October:

Virginia Giuffre, one of the most prominent survivors (but now a victim) of serial child rapist and trafficker – and almost certain Israel intelligence asset – Jeffrey Epstein, was repeatedly left battered and bloodied after being beaten and raped by a man she describes, in a new memoir published after her death earlier this year, as a “well-known prime minister”.

Adding:

Giuffre said that she called the man ‘the Prime Minister’ and did not name him, because she was afraid he would come after her and cause her harm if she did. Before Epstein’s death, however, she named former Israeli PM Ehud Barak – also a close friend of Epstein’s ardent fan Peter Mandelson – as one of the many men to rape her, an accusation he has denied.

Virginia Giuffre wrote in horrific detail about the violence inflicted on her by the ‘PM’, whom she met when she was just eighteen:

“He repeatedly choked me until I lost consciousness and took pleasure in seeing me in fear for my life. Horrifically, the Prime Minister laughed when he hurt me and got more aroused when I begged him to stop. I emerged from the cabana bleeding from my mouth, vagina, and anus. For days, it hurt to breathe and to swallow… [He] raped me more savagely than anyone had before.”

King’s ‘concern’

The King chose his words carefully – and choice matters here, because men can choose to amplify victims’ voices and examine allegations critically. Rather than doing so, he voiced his “deepest concern” about his brother’s arrest and stated that “the law must take its course,” adding:

What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities.

This statement is reported to have the full support of Will and Kate, the Prince and Princess of Wales. Queenie Camilla had nothing to offer but a wave when asked for her feelings on the arrest. We can’t help but feel the Royal family’s concern here lies solely with Andrew, the man-child sex-pest, rather than the countless victims across the world who fell victim to powerful, privileged men and their sick fancies.

How the mighty have fallen, thus proving that powerful men can be brought to task if the political will is there:

‘Do you know who I was?’ #Andrew #AndrewWindsor pic.twitter.com/Gp6Eu5NuD9

— The Rev. Anton Mittens 🌹👮🎓 (@MittensOff) February 19, 2026

Accountability NOW

Don’t get us wrong, it is bloody wonderful to see the disgraced prince brought to task and finally facing a criminal investigation. A potential life sentence is equally refreshing to see. Nonetheless, many wish to see this go further. Despite the long relationship with Epstein, there has never been a thorough investigation into his involvement in the apparent trafficking ring instrumentalized by Epstein and co.

Enough must be enough. Andrew is now in a police station with more than enough evidence to legitimise a full investigation into allegations of sexual abuse. Yet powerful men have shown us that the protection of young girls will never be as important as protecting power.

Shame on them. Down with the monarchy.

For more on the Epstein Files, please read:

Featured image via the Canary

Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA) is celebrating the legal victory, with another huntsman brought to justice. Northampton magistrate’s court has found Philip Saunders guilty of illegal hunting on Wednesday 18 February. Saunders is one of the arsehole huntsman for criminal gang, the Pipewell Foot Beagles.

Another one?

The conviction is the second time these bloodthirsty arseholes have been caught out illegally hare-hunting.

And it beautifully landed just before the 21st anniversary of the Hunting Act.

The court heard how Saunders led his pack to kill a hare at the Boughton Estates on Kettering. Richard Scott is the current Duke of Buccleuch and one of the largest land owners in Scotland. It’s no shock that he would allow an illegal hunt to take place on ‘home turf.’

Courageous wildlife photographer Emma Reed was on the scene and captured the entire incident.

Reed’s video clearly shows Saunders encouraging the hounds to kill. The huntsman was heard growling “Get onto it!” at the dogs. This is a specific hunting term which incites animal cruelty and it proves the hunt intended to pursue the hare.

As per usual, the HSA provided names to the police at the time, but they failed to act on the evidence. Again.

Losing the horn

The magistrate fined Saunders £1,000 for his role in the illegal hunt. He also has to pay £3,600 in costs and a £400 victim surcharge.

In the landmark move, the court also ordered the destruction of Saunders’ hunting horn. Saunders must surrender it to the police by 5pm Thursday 19 Feb.

Destroying the horn is beautifully symbolic as this is the primary tool a huntsman uses to control the hounds. The HSA believe this should be common practice in all cases as it effectively strips the bloodthirsty wankers of the ability to lead.

Reed expressed her satisfaction with the guilty verdict stating:

“I am pleased with the guilty verdict as justice has been served. The judge was strong in his summing up of sending a message to the hunting community that these illegal actions will not be tolerated and are totally unacceptable.”

Justice for wildlife

The Judge was strong in his summing up of the case, making it clear that illegal hunting of hares is totally unacceptable and it sends a clear warning to the hunting community.

Simon Russell, chair of the HSA spoke to the Canary about this landmark victory:

Hare Hunts always pack up and go home when sabs find them, this is what they are really doing when they’re not under observation, killing our public wild Hares. A good hunting horn is hard to come by, the really decent ones rack in at £300 plus and we would suggest that future convictions have the horns donated to the Hunt Saboteurs Association. We would put them to good use saving wildlife.

Images via Emma Reed

An American attack on Iran appears imminent. US president Donald Trump has deployed massive military force to the Persian Gulf while negotiations between the two counties seem to have stalled. Media reports the attack could start as soon as Saturday 21 February.

Iran’s leadership has said that the principles of the negotiations — centring on Iran’s nuclear plans (or lack thereof) — were understood but that no agreement had been reached. The US has said military options are very much ‘on the table’ while Iran now says it’s open to international nuclear inspections.

Iran closed large areas of its airspace on 19 February. It’s aviation authority said it was:

to allow a planned missile launch exercise tomorrow. It specified danger zones where flying will be completely banned due to military activity.

Anonymous Iranian security officials said it was a show of force, and the US aviation authority has followed suit:

warning that uncoordinated missile launches could pose catastrophic risks, including endangering civilian flight paths.

The closure was enough to active alarm bells for some countries. Poland urged its citizens to leave Iran. Prime minister Donald Tusk said:

In a few, a dozen, or several dozen hours, evacuation may no longer be possible.

Behind the scenes, US military aircraft have been moving into the region for days.

Tankers inbound

Sky News reported that American refuelling planes have passed through the UK as part of the build-up. Starmer’s Britain, it appears, is happy to serve as checkpoints for Trump’s march to war.

Military expert professor Michael Clarke was on Sky on 18 February. Using open source air traffic mapping, he showed how on 16 February six US tankers passed through the UK on their way to Greece. On 18 February, a further ten tankers passed through the UK on their way towards the Mediterranean:

You can hear his analysis from around 1.55 in this report:

And Drop Site News journalists Jeremy Scahill and Murtaza Huzzain reported:

the largest buildup of firepower in the Middle East since President Donald Trump authorized a 12-day bombing campaign against Iran last June that killed more than 1,000 people.

One anonymous former Trump insider told the investigative outlet that:

based on his discussions with current officials, he assesses an 80-90% likelihood of U.S. strikes within weeks.

And retired Lt. Col. Daniel Davis said the level of build-up:

harkens back to what I saw ahead of the 2003 Iraq war.

Davis warned:

You don’t assemble this kind of power to send a message. In my view, this is what you do when you’re preparing to use it. What I see on the diplomatic front is just to try to keep things rolling until it’s time to actually launch the military operation. I think that everybody on both sides knows where this is heading.

And a key US command and control aircraft is now in the region…

Critical command and control aircraft

Former US Marine and State Department whistleblower Matthew Hoh said the presence of the E-3 command and control aircraft was an indicator Trump intended to pull the trigger:

The E3 is an incredibly important aircraft. For those unfamiliar, it is the large airplane that looks like an airliner, but with a revolving radar disc on top.

The airplane is loaded with an air crew whose job is to observe, manage and control the airspace in its area. It is especially important for directing fighters and ground/sea based missile interceptors against Iranian missiles and drones.

This is the strongest indication to me of the seriousness of the US threat to Iran. The US has deployed more than 2/3 of its available E3 command/control aircraft to Europe and the Middle East.

The E3 is an incredibly important aircraft. For those unfamiliar, it is the large…

— Matthew Hoh (@MatthewPHoh) February 19, 2026

Renowned international relations scholar John Mearsheimer reminded us that barring UAE – which has close ties with the settler-colonial pariah state – the only country absolutely determined to have a war with Iran was Israel:

Drop Site broke down the scale of the build-up:

Two carrier strike groups—each built around one aircraft carrier, several guided‑missile destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles, and at least one submarine—are also being stationed nearby, along with several additional U.S. destroyers and submarines in regional waters near Iran to defend against ballistic missile attacks, as well as more than 30,000 U.S. military personnel and numerous Patriot and THAAD anti-missile batteries spread across regional military bases.

The USS Gerald R. Ford is on its way to the Gulf from the Caribbean. The ship took part in Trump’s last ‘spectacular’ – the Caracas raid which snatched Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro on 3 January. The Ford is the biggest and most advanced carrier in the world.

Former Pentagon official Jasmine El-Gamal told Drop Site.

This is not a dress rehearsal. This is it. This is not the negotiations of last year or the year before or the year before that. They’re backed into a corner. There’s no off ramp.

El-Gamal said:

The fact that that carrier is there tells me that this isn’t just a routine kind of, ‘Hey, let’s flex some muscle.’ He didn’t need that. He didn’t need to send that second carrier to flex muscle.

But what would a US-Iran war actually look like?

Short intense war?

With negotiations deadlocked, one expert said that Iran and US might favour a short intense war followed by a return to talks.

Swedish-Iranian scholar Trita Parsi told Democracy Now:

We have a very dangerous situation, because both sides actually believe that a short, intense war may improve their negotiating position.

The US believes its overwhelming military capability will:

be able to take out Iran militarily rather quickly and then force it to capitulate.

Parsi said the Iranians have other plans:

They believe that they have the ability to inflict significant damage on the United States in the short term, including on civilian oil installations in the region, closing down the Strait of Hormuz, that would shoot up oil prices…

The Iranians were calculating that:

the initial cost of this to the United States would be so immense, and the United States would recognize that it would have to go for a longer war, which it cannot afford, and as a result, it would get the United States to back off.

Yes another Middle east war is looming. It would be a war which is not at all separate to the current genocide in Gaza and the legacies of the Iraq war. In fact, it would compound both. The best case scenario is that it doesn’t happen at all. Next best? The sort of ‘limited’ bombing we’ve seen in the past.

The third, most terrifying and not at all unlikely outcome is that the war escalates into something altogether more existential with profound impacts for the region and the world, and which sends violent shocks through the global economy. A number of experts and insiders are saying we’ll find out sooner rather than later.

Featured image via the Canary

To Russia With Love

Putin’s Four-Year-Old Quagmire

There is a not particularly funny joke that is sometimes told in legal circles about why a law student failed to finish his coursework – because he had no conviction. With rare exceptions lawyers aren’t renowned for their sense of humour but I can’t help thinking someone, at the highest levels of our justice system, is having a right laugh at my expense and those who have loyally supported me over the past six years.

I’m talking about the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC – a sitting member of the Scottish Government’s cabinet who was nominated by Nicola Sturgeon to that post in 2021, five months after I was acquitted.

For those unfamiliar with my case, I offer this brief summary. In March 2020 I made a short video on my mobile phone that was two minutes and thirty eight seconds in length. I hadn’t planned to make the video when I went out for a walk in a field near my home. But I was annoyed and wanted to articulate that annoyance, although at the time I recorded it I wasn’t intending for it to go much further.

Later that night, just before turning in, I uploaded it to my YouTube channel on a closed, unlisted link and then posted that link to my Twitter account that, at the time, had a modest 1000 or so followers. I then forgot about it.

Little did I know that short mobile phone video would result in me facing initially a criminal trial, then a five year legal battle in the highest civil court in Scotland and now, most likely, an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

In that very short video, I expressed my disdain for the complainers and conspirators, male and female, who were still trying to destroy the reputation of Alex Salmond, despite the fact he had been fully acquitted at the High Court just a few days before I made that video.

So what did I say? What possible criminal offence could I have uttered in less than three minutes that would result in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, then led by Ms Bain’s predecessor James Wolffe, despatching five Edinburgh detectives to raid my home, confiscate all of my tech and then bring me to trial where I potentially faced a year’s imprisonment if found guilty.

The video simply highlighted my opinion that if the complainers continued with their efforts against the former First Minister, ignoring the judgement of the High Court that had acquitted Alex, and they persisted in this campaign behind a veil of anonymity, then eventually, one way or another their identities would become widely known.

In evidence produced at the High Court the complainers themselves made plain that they could undertake this politically motivated campaign by exploiting the legal protections that rightly exist to protect actual victims of sexual assault. Their cynical and stated exploitation of this important protection not only continued to damage Alex’s reputation but also undermined wider confidence in those actual victims of such assault whose identities to deserve to be protected from the wider public.

That aspect is one of the more egregious and nefarious undertaken by the complainers and those who coordinated them in what has become the Alex Salmond saga.

As Sheriff Patterson concluded at Jedburgh Sheriff Court, “I do not accept [the comments made in the video] would cause a reasonable person fear and alarm. The video contained an opinion, nothing more.” He accepted my defence team’s motion of “no case to answer” and the prosecution case was dismissed and I was fully acquitted.

But such is the lunacy of Scotland’s once-revered independent legal system that my only hope of a subsequent remedy for this wrongful prosecution would have come if I had been jailed in January 2021. Only then would I have a legal route to seek compensation.

As Fergus Ewing MSP, former Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary and Minister noted in Holyrood just last week (see from 17.08), that situation is plainly “absurd”.

After my acquittal I instructed Solicitor Advocate Gordon Dangerfield – easily the most tenacious and dogged lawyer I have ever come across – and Andrew Smith KC to act on my behalf and in May 2025 we finally secured two full days of legal debate with the aim, on our side, of moving to the “proof stage”. That would potentially have enabled “certain facts”, as Alex Salmond put it following his acquittal, to see the light of day.

After these hearings we waited for Lord Lake’s considered written judgement, which was finally published on 5th February 2026. It is 31 pages in length and narrates, for the most part, all the legal issues around my case in some considerable detail before coming to a conclusion on whether I could proceed to the proof stage and what would have been the “juicy parts”.

Myself and my legal team were confident we could prove that there was clear malicious intent behind the decision to prosecute me in 2021. However, as Lord Lake makes plain in his conclusions, my case cannot proceed because of legislation passed by the UK Parliament.

The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 170 provides that prosecutors are immune from liability for malicious prosecution in summary proceedings like mine, where the person suing was not imprisoned.

In his written submissions to the court, my solicitor advocate posed these questions about that provision: “On what rational basis is a prosecutor liable for malicious prosecution only if imprisonment has been imposed on the person suing? … Is it compatible with Article 6 for there to be no remedy for a person seeking to sue and caught by the terms of section 170?”

Our answers to those questions had already been given almost four years earlier in our letter before action to the Lord Advocate, lodged as a production with the court. Section 170 was, we said, “incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention in that it fails to provide a remedy when a wrong is committed”.

Lord Lake has now agreed. In a formal declaration in his judgment he has found section 170 to be “inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), as it is an unjustifiable restriction on a pursuer’s right to have a determination of the merits of his claim that he was the subject of a malicious prosecution”.

That is an incredible statement in its own right, but Lord Lake continued: “Nothing has been brought to my attention to indicate why, notwithstanding the submission of no case to answer being upheld, it could be said that there was a case fit to try. It therefore appears that in the circumstances, the decision of the sheriff to sustain a submission of no case to answer indicates that there was no objective reasonable and probable cause [for bringing a prosecution].”

He then conducted his own analysis of the evidence and concluded: “Whether on the basis of the view taken by the sheriff at the trial or an examination of the evidence available in relation to the requirements of section 38 [the statutory breach of the peace provision under which I was prosecuted], viewed objectively there was no reasonable and probable cause to commence the prosecution – no case fit to be put before a court.”

In other words, Lord Lake is saying that if it was not malice that lay behind the decision to prosecute me, then what was it? In effect, he is laying out the basis of my claim and that it has clear merit. Indeed, he concludes in terms that “the requirements for a case of malicious prosecution against the Lord Advocate … are admitted, established, or the subject of relevant averments” in my pleadings before the court, and that I should be able to go to proof on them.

However, my claim cannot continue because the law stands at present is inconsistent with ECHR and my rights to a fair trial.

Now you might think that conclusion would have been a welcome one for our Lord Advocate because it effectively brings an end to my legal claim against her.

But on Monday 16th February 2026 the Lord Advocate took the decision to appeal Lord Lake’s decision to the Inner House of the Court of Session, the highest civil law court in Scotland. It is a fair assumption that the Lord Advocate is not best pleased by the ruling, not least because it leaves the door wide open for us to proceed with an application to the European Court of Human Rights.

Given Lord Lake’s very strong judgement substantively in my favour, albeit having been forced to dismiss my claim, we are confident of getting a very sympathetic hearing in Europe.

However, one consequence (intended or otherwise is hard to say) of this decision is that we now face unexpected additional court costs.

From the start, it has been clear that the Crown Office, led by the Lord Advocate, has sought to grind us down and price me out of this important legal case. Through the sheer generosity of my supporters in both my initial criminal trial and later in this civil case, we have kept up the fight.

Some have argued that it might have been easier for me to have simply walked away after my acquittal in 2021. They have misjudged me.

For simply offering an opinion in a 158-second video that initially hardly anyone viewed, I had my home raided, my mobile and laptop taken and all of my digital fingerprint forensically scrutinised in what was evidently a fishing expedition. Even after this, so weak was their case they had to amend my initial charge and hope they could jail me under a catch-all breach of the peace.

The publicity, generated by the complainers who didn’t even wait for the initial police report to be actioned, was relentless and highly critical of me personally, causing huge reputational damage that ultimately saw me lose contracts amounting to tens of thousands of pounds. As so often in modern Scotland the process was the punishment, but if they had succeeded I would also have been in prison for a year, for uttering a short opinion on legal proceedings that had been concluded and were of huge public interest.

Senior Counsel for the Lord Advocate during his pleadings at last May’s Court Of Session hearings before Lord Lake made no effort to hide the real agenda; to send a chilling effect across all those who had criticised the complainers.

This is not how actual justice systems are meant to function or how a state prosecutor should be conducting public affairs. Their actions are, as many within the criminal justice system have already noted, brought the entire system into disrepute, but still they continue.

This week I have reluctantly relaunched my financial appeal to get us over this next hurdle. We are genuinely optimistic about our chances but we cannot do that without support.

It has already become a landmark and historic case but we need one big final push. Hopefully then, the joke and the last laugh will be on Scotland’s malicious state prosecutor.

Cllr Steve Harden is the Shadow Cabinet Member for Environmental Services on Rushmoor Borough Council.

Where should councils draw the line between education and enforcement in our communities? Education has an important role to play, but without enforcement it is failing to protect the cleanliness of our country.

I have noticed a worrying decline over the last couple of years in the cleanliness of our nation’s streets. Most back alleys or local fields have some kind of fly-tip, or you find yourself walking through the woods and seeing a bag of dog mess that someone has flung into a bush. I really don’t understand why people make the effort to pick it up, bag it and then throw it into the closest bush when a perfectly good bin is waiting nearby. Everywhere you look, litter seems to fill our streets.

Since being elected as a councillor, I have carried out multiple litter picks with colleagues and local residents, but there are only so many times volunteers can pick up the same litter that magically appears a couple of days later in the exact same spot.

In a council meeting last year, I reviewed our local plan, which seemed to be littered with ways to get more volunteers involved, asking them to pick up the where Labour is failing. While across the county we support volunteers and are grateful for the work they do, how can it be fair that more services are cut while more is expected of people constantly cleaning up their area?

Of course, like many, I believe people should carry out social responsibility, helping to keep their area clean and reporting offenders. When it becomes a part-time job, we know we have an issue.

Nowhere can this be seen more than in my own borough, Rushmoor, where litter-pick teams are going across the borough cleaning up other people’s mess. However, a recent council meeting made me wonder: where do we draw the line between education and enforcement?

In Rushmoor, if you drop litter, you can be certain you will not receive a fine if spotted. Why? Because our Labour council has decided the focus should be on educating people, not enforcing. This isn’t a hidden policy at Rushmoor; at just our last council meeting, Labour councillors were proud to announce that no fines had been issued to offenders.

Now you may think that perhaps there aren’t the resources to enforce, but Rushmoor, alongside many councils in the country, has a dedicated enforcement team patrolling areas looking for offenders. While they “educate” litterers, more and more volunteers are called into action to pick up the slack. Enforcement is not anti-community; it supports the dedicated volunteers going out every day and the law-abiding majority. Let me be clear: this is not a criticism of volunteers, whose time, effort and commitment are invaluable, but of councils using goodwill as a substitute for proper enforcement.

Fly-tipping across the county is another major issue. Fly-tipping incidents in England are now at their highest recorded levels. I was pleased to see that the Conservatives are calling for legislation to come forward to increase the maximum fine, currently £1,000 for those caught. This would make a huge difference in our area, helping to reduce this fly-tipping plague.

Despite many councils needing to reduce cleanliness services in this year’s budget due to inflation, National Insurance rises and, in some cases, the “fair funding review”, Labour-run councils like ours seem to be focusing on schemes that give the illusion things are improving when reality says something different. Labour here in Rushmoor created a pilot scheme called Walk This Waste.

The idea was that a van would drive around Rushmoor asking people to carry their fridge freezer or oven to the van for removal. This scheme cost thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Worse still, the scheme failed to reduce fly-tipping and, in some instances, increased it. I suppose it was slightly better than their reported idea of placing skips on major roads through the borough.

I, for one, agree with educating people on keeping the borough clean, putting waste in the bin and not falling to the temptation to fling a poo bag into a bush (however strong that may be…). However, it must be done in conjunction with enforcement. I myself have worked with local schools and taken part in local litter picks with all ages, which does bring a great community spirit. However, if Labour continues to forget enforcement, sadly people will often take the easy option.

If we believe in pride in our country, then we must also believe in caring for it – and that is why Conservatives should be leading the call to clean up Britain.