Connect with us

Politics

Philip Stephenson-Oliver: We have the plans to do density well, let’s copy them

Published

on

Philip Stephenson-Oliver: We have the plans to do density well, let's copy them

Philip Stephenson-Oliver is the current Association Chairman of the Queen’s Park and Maida Vale Conservatives (formerly Westminster North). He serves as a soldier in the Honourable Artillery Company and has worked in the wine trade for over ten years.

As I drove up to Norfolk for Christmas, I was struck by how relentlessly the countryside has been consumed by new housing estates. Through Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, and into Norfolk, the same developments appeared again and again: vast tracts of identikit homes, thrown up at speed, devoid of character, and rooted in the cheapest possible design philosophy.

This is housing as a numbers exercise, not as a place to live. Indeed, one of Angela Rayner’s first acts as Secretary of State for Housing was to remove any notion of a ‘right to beauty’ as a guiding principle in housing development.

These estates are the very definition of lazy architecture. They are built to satisfy short-term targets rather than long-term communities. And as the late Donald Rumsfeld observed, there are ‘known-unknowns”. One such known-unknown is this: somewhere within many of these developments lies a poorly built, over-regulated design flaw that will reveal itself in twenty or thirty years. When it does, these houses will not merely lose value; they will become prisons for their owners, costly to maintain, difficult to sell, and politically toxic to repair.

Advertisement

It does not have to be this way.

If planners, officials, and ministers were serious about solving the housing crisis properly — not just hitting annual completion figures — they would look to a tried and tested model of urban development. They should look at Maida Vale in West London.

For the past eight years, I have been happy to call Maida Vale home. It is a near-perfect example of Victorian urban planning at its finest. Across the ward stand rows of handsome red-brick mansion blocks, typically seven or eight storeys high, elegantly proportioned and thoughtfully laid out. While individual flats are not always large by modern standards, they benefit from high ceilings and generous windows, creating a genuine sense of light and space that modern developments consistently fail to replicate.

But Maida Vale’s real secret is this: it is one of the most densely populated areas not just in London, but in the entire country — and you would never know it.

Advertisement

On paper, the ward has a population density of around 18,000 people per square kilometre. Yet that figure understates the reality. Nearly a third of the area is taken up by Paddington Recreation Ground, a large and much-loved public park. Remove that from the calculation, and the true density rises to something closer to 25,000 people per square kilometre. To put this into perspective, the City of London has a population density of around 5,000 people per square kilometre, Marylebone around 10,000, and Vauxhall just under 17,000.

And yet Maida Vale does not feel crowded, oppressive, or hostile. It feels calm, orderly, and beautiful. This is density done properly.

That beauty matters more than many planners are willing to admit. Medium- to high-density urban living is where the majority of people now wish to live, and it is the obvious solution to our housing pressures. Yet it has been rendered deeply off-putting by decades of poor design: from the unforgiving brutalism of the 1960s, through the plasticised PVC architecture of the 1980s, to the soulless, cladding-wrapped developments of the 2000s.

As for much of today’s so-called architecture, the less said, the better. Even the most ideologically committed, pearl-clutching Liberal Democrat NIMBY would struggle to object to the development of this kind we see in Maida Vale. The lesson is obvious: people will accept density when it is done well.

Advertisement

This matters because housing — its availability, affordability, and quality — is one of the most important issues facing my generation and those below it. In my view, it is also a major contributor to Britain’s alarmingly low birth rate. When people cannot afford space, stability, or permanence, they do not start families. It is as simple as that.

I have just entered my thirties, and the vast majority of my friends either do not have children or do not plan on doing so. For aspirational middle-class families, the decision not to have children is often driven by cost. Britain’s housing system has become a generational Ponzi scheme: those lucky enough to buy early have grown wealthy on paper, while their children and grandchildren are trapped in high rents and obscene house prices.

There are only a limited number of ways this can change. One is a serious reduction in immigration — something that may finally be starting to happen as visa numbers fall and post-pandemic schemes unwind. But immigration policy alone will not solve the problem.

What we also need is a fundamental rethink of how and what we build.

Advertisement

I am not arguing that Maida Vale is a museum piece. I am arguing that it is a model. The cheap, modernist estates spreading across the country today will not be standing in a hundred years. Many will be demolished and replaced by something just as ugly and just as disposable. The Victorian mansion blocks of Maida Vale, by contrast, will still be there — a permanent legacy of beauty, density, and intelligent urban design.

If we want to build homes that last, communities that endure, and cities that people are proud to live in, we already know how to do it. We simply need the courage to copy what works.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Hold up, anaesthesia doesn't actually put you to sleep?!

Published

on

Hold up, anaesthesia doesn't actually put you to sleep?!

!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”54ed1b10-ffc6-41ab-986a-4052f777b1e3″}).render(“698dfcace4b0d2244f566002”);});

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Lambeth leads the way in launching the Vote Palestine pledge

Published

on

Lambeth leads the way in launching the Vote Palestine pledge

The Palestine Youth Movement (PYM) joined community members in Lambeth on Thursday 5 February to kick Labour out of their hometown. As a result, local people realised their democratic power in being the first community in the UK to launch the ‘Vote Palestine’ pledge campaign for the upcoming local elections in May.

Lambeth leading the way

The Lambeth event was led by Mariam of the PYM and London Votes Palestine campaign. Mariam gave an inspiring masterclass in how ordinary people can come together. In turn, she showed how voters across the country can use their democratic power to get the change they want to see in their hometowns.

Activists from Jewish Voice for Liberation (JVL) and Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) joined other local activists and people who have had enough of Labour’s ongoing complicity and willingness to ignore Israel’s flagrant breaches to countless international laws. Former ANC member and arms trade corruption investigator Andrew Feinstein also attended the event.

In true unity and solidarity, organisers inspired and energised local people to get Palestine on the ballot.

Advertisement

‘No divestment: No votes’

Mariam of the Palestine Youth Movement passionately introduced the Lambeth campaign and what it hopes to achieve:

Lambeth Vote Palestine is not just launching here, but it’s part of a national campaign that is launching in 12 boroughs across London because people are fed up of Labour councils that are not listening to people that are pushing resolutions for divestment from genocide. It’s launching in Manchester, in Greater Manchester, in Newcastle, in Birmingham and in Sheffield. And the first national launch is taking place here today in Brixton in Lambeth.

So, the way that Vote Palestine came together has essentially come from all these local organisers that have tried to push divestment resolutions to get money out of Israel and money into our council and into the people of this council. But we know that Labour councillors have lied to us about just how much political power they have in order to take on divestment. We know that Labour councillors have watered down resolutions that have managed to pass and protests have been tried, resolutions have been tried, all sorts of attention against Labour majority councils have been tried.

And we know that they’re not interested in divestment from Israel because it’s a party of genocide. It’s a party that’s done nothing against austerity. It’s a party that with Rachel Reeves’ latest budget is raising taxes on ordinary working people. And we see this in Lambeth as well. It is a council that has ignored us time and time again.

So up and down the country, We know that the elections are coming in May 2026. And we’ve gotten started a little bit early, but actually right now, Labour is preparing itself for who’s going to be standing in the next election, and preparing its candidates and other parties are doing that as well. But so is Vote Palestine. We are preparing to say: no divestment, no vote. So, we are asking two things nationally, as well as here in Lambeth.

Advertisement

The first is what’s called a councillor’s pledge. We are asking that any sitting councillor or new candidate signs a councillor’s pledge that commits them to getting money out of Israel and money into our communities. No divestment, no votes.

But there’s a second portion to this, because this is also a grassroots campaign and a people-driven campaign, one that’s going to be powered forward by us giving it a little bit of time every month and getting a big impact out through just a little bit of labour together. And that is the People’s Pledge. So we are also asking voters to take a pledge that will say, ‘if this candidate has not endorsed the councillor’s pledge, we will not be voting for them’. And we’re going to take that to councillor’s and say, ‘hey, you know what? In Lambeth, hundreds of people have committed to the Palestine pledge, to the people’s pledge, and these people will not be voting for candidates that have not endorsed divestment, that have not endorsed Palestine.’

Mariam later referred to the response they receive on the ground from constituents in London, adding:

We’ve been talking to people all over London around what’s the issue that needs more funding? And no one says genocide. So this campaign is really about… We’re putting Palestine on the ballot. We know that the people are with Palestine. We also know from the last election, with the election of the Gaza Independents, that there is a Palestine-first voter. It’s time to show that in the local elections. And we’re going to make that known.

From Lambeth, from Brixton, all the way up to Newcastle and the country over, we’re going to put Palestine on the ballot and make it a non-negotiable issue. No divestment, no votes.

Advertisement

‘At the expense of our NHS, our benefit system, and all local services’

In Lambeth, Feinstein discussed the clear corruption at the heart of our current UK government, namely Keir Starmer’s lucrative relationship with billionaire-owned Quadrature:

And the reality is, I’ve just come from a Zoom meeting with four Palestinian journalists who are fortunate to be alive. What sort of a sick world do we live in? When journalists start a conversation when they introduce themselves by saying, I’m thankful to be alive. Because hundreds of their colleagues are not.

But what relevance does that have for Brixton and for Lambeth? It has every relevance. The reality is that the biggest political donation in British electoral history was paid by a company called Quadrature Capital to the campaign of Keir Starmer for the 2024 local election. That resulted in a situation where Starmer, who didn’t once show his face in his own constituency because he knows he would have been drummed out of town, spent tens of thousands of pounds on direct social media advertising. Our independent campaign was allowed to spend £17k in total on everything. Because the political system here is fixed.

Within three weeks of coming to power, Keir Starmer announced two policy proposals. One is he went back on his commitment to a new green economic plan that he’d committed at least £20bn to. And then he increased defence spending by £3.5bn a year until 2027. At which point, defense spending will increase by £15.4bn. Quadrature capital’s asset value at the end of those three weeks of Starmer being in power increased exponentially for the expenditure of £5m in their political donations.

And that is why Britain today lives in the best democracy money can buy. Our politicians are bought and paid for. Keir Starmer is a puppet. He is a puppet, not just of Morgan McSweeney, the little worm who is his chief of staff, but he is the puppet of billionaires and corporate interests like Quadrature. Quadrature has invested primarily in fossil fuels and arms company. Of that £15.4bn increase in our defense budget in 2027, a huge proportion of it will land up being used against the people of Palestine.

Advertisement

And that £15.4 bn is at the expense of our NHS, our benefit system, and all of our local services. Because frankly, and I’ll ask you to excuse my language here, but as you might gather, I’m a little bit angry about this. People like Keir Starmer and all of our establishment politicians don’t give a fuck about us. And if ever that was brought to our attention, it’s in the reality that people like them were more concerned about the fact that Jeremy Corbyn could not pronounce Jeffrey Epstein’s name properly, which they regarded as anti-Semitic. Then they are about the fact that Lord Peter Mandelson was who is an architect of the Starmer Project, is closest friends with a paedophile, with a man who has abused and sex-trafficked hundreds and hundreds of children for abuse by the old white men who run this world and profit from it.

‘Legal responsibility to take action’ in Lambeth

Local activist Jan O’Malley gave an eye-opening and inspiring speech about the sheer scale of Lambeth council investment in Israel and its ongoing genocide. Referring to the power of the BDS movement, O’Malley said:

BDS, you all know about BDS, boycott, divestment and sanctions. We are the D in BDS. So how big is this problem? PSC has done a massive amount of work on research on this, which has been a great resource for us all. And they have found that 81 local government pension schemes have collectively invested over £12bn in companies complicit with Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. It’s genocide, it’s apartheid and it’s illegal occupation. And the British government as a party to the genocide convention has a legal responsibility to take action to prevent further genocide.

PSC has sent a letter to every pension committee member across the country, telling them about this legal duty. It’s not worth waiting until the ICJ finally concludes there is a genocide, they’re meant to prevent genocides. And this means that we take immediate action to start divesting. So, in Lambeth, how big is the problem? Well, the figures that we got from FOIs that PSC did was that the Lambeth Pension Fund had £52.4m invested in companies complicit with Israel. And this included £25m in Amazon, £20m in Alphabet.

They may say, ‘oh, we all use them’, and at the council meeting, they were joking about that. ‘Do you mean we ought to stop us using Amazon and Uber and things in our everyday lives? This is what these unrealistic people who are petitioning us are saying.’ But both of those companies are involved in providing Project Nimbus, which is a computing technology system of surveillance, which has been used to target the journalists, the doctors, the people in Gaza that they wanted to target…. it’s used and bought and helps and supports the Israeli government and military. Other investments are arms companies like Boeing, Rolls Royce, but also Israeli government bonds, which are actually lending money to the Israeli government, and Barclays, which funds so many arms companies.

Advertisement

Referring to a petition sent to Lambeth Council and its pensions committee, O’Malley finished by saying:

We took our petition. We presented it middle of November last year, thinking the council needed time to check the addresses and everything. And then we had to give them enough time. And they were meant to let us know in 10 days, if there was anything wrong with our petition. They didn’t until the day before the full council meeting, when they rejected the petition on the grounds that it was about something that they do not control, and they pointed a little item J in their constitution about petitions which will be rejected. They’re saying they’ve changed their constitution to take out the word control and amend all the weaselly words. They only administer.

So, what has the Pensions Committee been doing every three months when they meet and take decisions? It’s a total farce. It’s ludicrous. It’s dishonest. So shame on Lambeth Council. I was really shocked at this. It took me, I’m quite cynical and I’ve been demonstrating an activism since I was 14, but I’ve not known a council behave like this in my lifetime. So it shocked me. I wasn’t ready for it. So what are we going to do? We’re going to challenge. this attack on solidarity with Palestine, which is what it is, and democracy, which is what it is, by all available means, including in the local elections in May, which leads us to why we’re here tonight. And we will support alternative candidates who take the pledge for Palestine. And we will challenge Labour councillors who refuse to take the pledge and collude with this despicable denial of democracy. So let’s challenge them on the doorsteps. Let’s get busy with Lambeth Votes Palestine.

Lambeth community commits to Vote Palestine in Local Elections

‘Get these shits out of their offices’

As ever, another powerful speech in Lambeth was delivered by Glyn Secker of what was formerly Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL). First Secker told us that the ‘L’ no longer stands for Labour, as a result of their pro-genocide actions, but now stands for ‘liberation’ in solidarity with Palestinians. Secker has long refused to be connected to the hostile state of Zionist Israel particularly as a Jewish man, stating:

We represent a very different perspective on what it means to be a Jew in this country, a very different point of view from the Jewish establishment, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council. I’m going to give you a perspective, a historical one, tied up with where we are now.

Jews in this country represent 0.5% of the population. Muslims represent about 5%. So you might ask, why is the Israeli lobby so damn powerful? Why is their establishment here has minimal concerns with Islamophobia, but maximal focus on anti-Semitism and its weaponization?

Advertisement

But we can do no more than understand racism without understanding imperialism and slavery, than we can understand Islamophobia without understanding oil imperialism, which replaced slavery as a financial driver of the second stage of the development of international capitalism.

The economic foundations of Israel were laid by mercantile Jews, traders, financiers, and then developing into international bankers. the privileged upper-class Jews with a role in developing the first stage of capitalism. To jump very quickly from that to Israel and Zionism, Zionism translated that role into a nationalist form, a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of hostile Arabism, as a British colonial agent in the Middle East described it at the time. And what happened was the development of Israel took over that role of Jewish capital when the bankers began, the Jewish bankers, Rothschilds and so on, began to give way to the large financial institutions developing in the States.

And so Israel took on that role of American imperial interest in the Middle East. Like the financials before them, they slotted neatly into servicing the dominant economic and political order. And so you have the United States’ multi-billion pound transfers to Israel, not just now during the genocide, but it’s accelerated. It’s been going on for decades, from the beginning of Israel’s inception, pretty much. So it’s imperative to draw a distinction between Israel and its ideology, political Zionism and Jew. Because I have nothing to do with what’s going on there, as far as I’m concerned, and I will not be identified with that. And there are many hundreds of thousands, probably a couple of million of us around the country.

Secker finished with a bit of advice for those out on doorsteps facing the inevitable allegations of antisemitism for refusing to support mass-murder, advising:

Advertisement

So what do you do on the doorstep when you’re told that it’s anti-Semitic? Well, you just say, there’s a whole lot of Jews in this country, who are deeply committed to it, because they’re deeply committed against genocide, who are deeply committed against any Holocaust, whoever perpetrates it.

And if it’s Jews, well for me, I’m deeply against that from the bottom of my being, because that is not something that I identify with in terms of my integrity and my humanity. So, I can’t tolerate, as a Jewish pensioner, drawing a lamb of pension that my deferred wages are invested in weapons companies that are slaughtering Palestinians.

So, I am deeply behind this campaign to get these shits out of their offices so we can disinvest.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | Chris Wormald Standing Down As Cabinet Secretary

Published

on

Chris Wormald Standing Down As Cabinet Secretary
Chris Wormald Standing Down As Cabinet Secretary

Chris Wormald was appointed cabinet secretary in December 2024 (Alamy)


2 min read

Chris Wormald has agreed with Prime Minister Keir Starmer to stand down as cabinet secretary and head of the civil service.

Advertisement

For an interim period, the responsibilities of the cabinet secretary will be shared by Cabinet Office permanent secretary Catherine Little, Home Office permanent secretary Dame Antonia Romeo, and Treasury permanent secretary James Bowler.

A new cabinet secretary will be appointed “shortly”, according to the government.

Wormald was appointed as head of the civil service in December 2024, having previously served as the permanent secretary for the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education.

Advertisement

In a statement on Thursday, Wormald said: “It has been an honour and a privilege to serve as a civil servant for the past 35 years, and a particular distinction to lead the Service as Cabinet Secretary.

“I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the extraordinary civil servants, public servants, ministers, and advisers I have worked with. Our country is fortunate to have such dedicated individuals devoted to public service, and I wish them every success for the future.”

Starmer said: “I am very grateful to Sir Chris for his long and distinguished career of public service, spanning more than 35 years, and for the support that he has given me over the past year. I have agreed with him that he will step down as Cabinet Secretary today. I wish him the very best for the future.”

Advertisement

It has been widely briefed that Starmer intends to replace Wormald with Romeo.

However, in an extraordinary intervention on Wednesday, former senior civil servant Simon McDonald said the government must carry out “more due diligence” before appointing her.

McDonald, the former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office, told Channel 4: “The due diligence needs to be thorough. If the candidate mentioned in the media is the one, in my view, the due diligence has some way still to go.”

The Home Office permanent secretary was previously investigated by the Foreign Office while serving as Consul General in New York in 2017, over allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination and misusing expenses.

Advertisement

Wormald is the latest senior figure to depart the top of government in recent days.

Morgan McSweeney has resigned as Starmer’s chief of staff, and Tim Allan has stepped down as the No 10 director of communications, amid severe criticism of Starmer’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador despite being aware of his links to Jeffrey Epstein.

 

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Fresh Blow For Keir Starmer As Head Of Civil Service Resigns

Published

on

Fresh Blow For Keir Starmer As Head Of Civil Service Resigns

Keir Starmer has lost his top civil servant barely a year after appointing him.

Cabinet Secretary Sir Chris Wormald agreed “by mutual consent” with the prime minister to stand down.

The prime minister hailed Chris Wormald’s “exceptional” leadership when he was announced as cabinet secretary in December, 2024.

However, it is understoof the PM has been unhappy with his performance and now he has gone just 14 months later.

Advertisement

In a statement, Wormald said: “It has been an honour and a privilege to serve as a civil servant for the past 35 years, and a particular distinction to lead the service as Cabinet Secretary.

“I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the extraordinary civil servants, public servants, ministers, and advisers I have worked with. Our country is fortunate to have such dedicated individuals devoted to public service, and I wish them every success for the future.”

The PM said: “I am very grateful to Sir Chris for his long and distinguished career of public service, spanning more than 35 years, and for the support that he has given me over the past year.

“I have agreed with him that he will step down as Cabinet Secretary today. I wish him the very best for the future.”

Advertisement

He is the third senior official to leave No.10 in the past week, after chief of staff Morgan McSweeney resigned on Sunday and communications director Tim Allan quit on Monday.

Wormald’s departure raises fresh questions about Starmer’s judgment following his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson the UK’s ambassador to Washington.

The disgraced former Labour peer was sacked seven months later over his connections to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Mandelson is now facing a criminal investigation over allegations he passed market sensitive information to the billionaire financier when he was business secretary in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.

Advertisement

Starmer sang Wormald’s praises when he first appointed him just over a year ago, saying: “Delivering this scale of change will require exceptional civil service leadership.

“There could be no-one better placed to drive forward our Plan for Change than Chris, and I look forward to working with him as we fulfil the mandate of this new government, improving the lives of working people and strengthening our country with a decade of national renewal.”

Speculation that Starmer himself could step down reached fever pitch on Monday after Scottish leader Anas Sarwar urged him to quit, but the prime minister told Labour MPs he was “not prepared to walk away”.

“I have had my detractors every step along the way, and I’ve got them now. Detractors that don’t want a Labour government at all, and certainly not one to succeed,” Starmer said at a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting.

Advertisement

“But I’ll tell you this, after having fought so hard for the chance to change our country, I’m not prepared to walk away from my mandate and my responsibility to my country, or to plunge us into chaos, as others have done.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

The truth about the Epstein Files

Published

on

The truth about the Epstein Files

The post The truth about the Epstein Files appeared first on spiked.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Tommy Robinson accused of using AI for his Jerusalem Post article

Published

on

Tommy Robinson accused of using AI for his Jerusalem Post article

It appears that The Jerusalem Post is allowing anyone to write for them nowadays. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (a.k.a. Tommy Robinson) wrote an opinion piece for them on Wednesday 11 February entitled “Jeffrey Epstein and the system that protected him.”

After months of silence on the Files, he finally spoke out.

But there’s several issues surrounding this piece that we need to look into. first is Robinson’s dramatic shift in prose. It uses clinical, polished language that stands in contrast with his usual street-level shouting.

And many are claiming he wrote it with AI:

Advertisement

We also need to ask why this prominent racist grifter is even being given a platform to spew his bile.

His use of AI isn’t the issue here

It’s certainly plausible that Tommy Robinson used AI for his article. It has all the tells, and to be honest, it would be more surprising if he had written it himself. Robinson can barely string a sentence together on Twitter, so these accusations hold a lot of weight.

Advertisement

But it’s not Robinson’s lack of literacy skills which are the problem here.

The problem is that, yet again, this racist, little grifter has completely fucked his own argument. By staying silent on the Epstein Files, literally the biggest white-led grooming gang of all time, all future input he has on the matter is null and void.

The Epstein Files have been out for a while. For months we have seen the censored images of women and children blasted across our screens. We have looked at thousands of redacted names of women who will never be able to come forward and tell their stories.

Why the fuck didn’t Robinson comment on this then? Why wait this long when you’re so desperate to ‘protect all women’?

Advertisement

The Epstein files have revealed what is probably the largest grooming-gang in the world.

And the guy running it was fucking white.

That’s why he’s been so silent. Because it doesn’t fit his ridiculously racist propaganda that he shovels down the neck of the British public. He is a hypocrite and a liar who is willing to ignore systematic abuse when the perpetrators look like him.

Oh, and the fact that he was in the files, because Epstein himself was a fan of his.

Advertisement

Tommy Robinson: a legacy of lies and hate

Nobody should listen to a single ‘take’ this opportunist has, whether it’s AI or not. Tommy Robinson’s history proves he is a danger to a better world.

I mean, it doesn’t really scream ‘protect all women’ when Robinson attacked a copper who was intervening in a domestic issue between himself and his partner. This cocaine soaked rat has so many convictions it’s hard to count. But they include intent to supply, harassing a literal child because he was an immigrant, leading football hooligans into a mass brawl, possessing and using a false passport, mortgage fraud, the list goes on.

Those actions alone mean that this little racist should be buried in the annals of history. But it’s made so much worse when this man does nothing but weaponise sexual violence to target migrant communities to stoke division.

For this convicted criminal, the abuse of women and girls was never the point. He only cares about sexual violence when he can turn the narrative and blame Black and Brown people.

Advertisement

Laundering his racist brand

Tommy Robinson is now leaning into a pro-Israel narrative to shield his racism. Hiding behind a literal genocidal state which is killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims is absolutely disgusting, but it didn’t stop Robinson going on a tour of the Zionist state. Robinson was called out by The Board of Deputies of British Jews for his trip, with them calling Robinson a “thug” and the “very worst of Britain”.

This AI slop in a shit publication shows how far Robinson has fallen. But he needs to fall further and into absolute oblivion. Robinson doesn’t give a shit about women. He only gives a shit about lining his greasy little pockets and shouting about innocent black and brown people to his legions of knuckle-dragging followers.

Rather than letting Robinson’s new grift flourished, it is time to see him for what he is. A racist little grifter who doesn’t give a shit about women and girls being raped.

He only cares about where he can get his next bag and how he can somehow turn the narrative on vulnerable marginalised groups.

Advertisement

Featured image via The Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Pam Bondi lies to defend Trump’s Epstein ties

Published

on

Pam Bondi lies to defend Trump's Epstein ties

US attorney general Pam Bondi may have walked herself into a sticky situation after declaring under oath to congress that there is:

no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime.

Pam Bondi: liar

Ted Lieu instantly called this out as a lie under oath. Lieu is vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus and a former Air Force colonel. Continuing, Lieu quoted a deeply concerning transcript from the Epstein Files. This transcript has raised urgent questions about the US President’s potential involvement in serious criminal acts. The Epstein Files have revealed a significant and highly suspicious relationship between Trump and convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett also took Bondi to task, arguing that she and the Trump administration cannot distinguish right from wrong.

‘Epstein should rot in hell, so should the men who patronised this operation’

Pam Bondi: There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime. Everyone knows that. This has been the most transparent presidency. He’s the one that asked that those files be released.

Ted Lieu: I’m going to claim my time. I got your answer. You said there’s no evidence.

Bondi: President Trump asked that he sign the legislation.

Lieu: This is time. Time belongs to the gentleman from California. Okay. I’m going to put up another document from… a witness who called the FBI’s National Threat Operation Center because I believe you just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein file.

Bondi: Don’t you ever accuse me of a crime.

Advertisement

Lieu: I believe you just lied under oath, and this is all on videotape. You said there’s no evidence of a crime. I’m showing you. Here is a witness statement who called into the FBI’s Threat Operation Center. He drove Donald Trump around in a limo. He overheard what Donald Trump said to Jeffrey on his cell phone. He was so angry, he was going to stop the limo and hurt Donald Trump. And he met a girl who said she was raped by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.

She later had her head blown off, and officers at the scene said that could not have been suicide. No one, no one at the Department of Justice interviewed this witness. You need to interview this witness immediately. Epstein should rot in hell, so should the men who patronised this operation. And as we sit here today, there are over 1,000 sex trafficking victims, and you have not held a single man accountable. Shame on you. If you had any decency, you would resign right after this hearing concludes.

Crockett: ‘protecting paedophiles and creeps’

Lieu wasn’t the only one to challenge Pam Bondi on her ability to recognise legal wrongdoing, which is quite a feat considering she’s a qualified lawyer.

Advertisement

Rep. Jasmine Crockett confronted Bondi directly, dismissing her denials of serious criminal conduct by the US President:

Crockett: Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And to be clear, I’m not going to ask any questions of this witness because this witness has revealed that she has no intentions of answering questions. But instead, I’m gonna ask some very basic questions really quickly of my colleague Becca Balint if she will answer.

Right or wrong, raping children?

Balint: Wrong.

Crockett: Right or wrong, killing random citizens?

Advertisement

Balint: Definitely wrong.

Crockett: Right or wrong, enriching yourself as the sitting president of the United States?

Balint: Definitely wrong.

Crockett: Okay, thank you. Cos I probably never would have got that with our witness. Our witness who somehow is a lawyer but does not understand how it works with witnesses. I’m not really sure what law school she went to and what all kind of cases she tried. But typically when you come into a space and somebody’s a witness, then they sit there and they answer questions instead of asking questions. And then we also have this objection that we use as lawyers called non-responsive, when a witness fails to actually answer the question, but nevertheless, let me address the survivors because that’s exactly who they are. They are not victims. They are survivors.

Advertisement

Let me say thank you for having more courage and moral clarity in your pinky fingers than the entire Department of Justice. We are currently the laughing stock of the world partially because of the failed leadership within the DOJ as we see kings and queens fallen everywhere around the world. But we don’t know the basics of right and wrong in this country because it’s not about partisanship.

And that’s why I applaud Thomas Massie because he’s the only person on the Republican side that has a backbone and knows how to stand up to corruption. But nevertheless, let me keep going. My Democratic colleagues have been attacked this entire committee hearing. They have been lied on. And frankly, the American people weren’t looking for that. They were looking for answers about the corruption that they see coming from this administration. In the written testimony of this witness, of this particular witness, she stated that when she took office, she had two main goals.

The first was to end the weaponisation of justice and second to return the department to its core mission. Not only have you lied about both, you’ve intentionally done the exact opposite. You’re spending more taxpayer resources arresting journalists than you are prosecuting paedophiles and creeps.

Crockett went on to say:

Advertisement

But let’s circle back to you protecting paedophiles and creeps because I want to talk about the president and his possible involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. Now, I don’t know what the president might have done with Jeffrey Epstein, but unlike this administration, I believe that facts matter. So, let’s talk about the facts. Fact number one, Donald Trump is one of the most named people in the Epstein files. At least 5,000 files contains more than 38,000 references to Trump, his wife, or Mara Lago.

Fact number two, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell made young girls available to Trump on multiple occasions. For example, according to this file, Ghislaine Maxwell presented a young girl to President Trump, who spent more than 20 minutes apparently flirting with her.

Here’s another example. This shows notes from FBI investigators that describe Jeffrey Epstein transporting a victim to Mara Lago to meet with President Trump where he bragged to Trump that quote, “This is a good one.” Now, I’m not saying that the president is a paedophile, but there is a lot of evidence in these files that suggests that he’s very close friends with a lot of men who are paedophiles. What’s crazy about all of this is just that this is a big cover up and this administration is engaged in it. In fact, this administration is complicit.  Or how your agency is ready to give the president a $230 million day payday, which is unconstitutional. The Constitution is clear. The president shall not receive any payment except his salary while in office. The fact of the matter is that you will be remembered as one of the worst attorney generals in history. An attorney general who has prioritized obstruction over justice, corruption over the law, fielty to the president over loyalty to the constitution. And Mr. Chairman, I will yield.

For more on the Epstein Files, please read:

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Belfast anti-genocide activists face trial

Published

on

Belfast anti-genocide activists face trial

In an era of state repression and mass murder backed by the most powerful nations on earth, it takes something special to speak truth to power. Nine Belfast Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) activists from have done just that. This February they face the full power of the genocide-complicit British state.

The Canary understands three of those charged will go on trial on 13 February. Another will be in court on 16 February and a fifth will face British ‘justice’ on 20 February.

The charges stem from two road blockades carried out on July and October 2025. In a powerful statement, the group made it clear that the real criminals are those who support Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestine.

Active genocide participants

BDS Belfast pulled no punches in their statement:

Stormont and Westminster have been active participants in the genocide of the Palestinian people.

Yet, it is 9 Belfast activists, from across multiple solidarity groups, who participated in peaceful civil disobedience, who the police are attempting to criminalise.

Advertisement

They added:

The only thing that we are guilty of is standing for the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity.

We will not be deterred

The original protests were focused on the role of the so-called ‘Gaza Humanitarian Foundation‘ and the Global Sumud Flotilla respectively and, more broadly, Stormont and Westminster’s support for Israel.

The Canary understands the charges will range from “obstructive sitting” and “unauthorised procession”. So peaceful protest then….

The nine plan to plead not guilty to all charges.

The British state would suppress every trace of human solidarity with Palestinians if it could. And it will do this at any cost to basic freedoms and rights. These activists are heroic figures. The Canary will keep you updated in the case as it progresses.

Featured image via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump’s Libel Case Against BBC Set for February 2027

Published

on

Trump’s Libel Case Against BBC Set for February 2027

A $10 billion defamation lawsuit brought against the BBC by US President Donald Trump has been set for trial in February 2027, a Florida judge has ordered. No fun for the BBC…

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

How Virginia's top court might decide Democrats' gerrymandering fate

Published

on

How Virginia's top court might decide Democrats' gerrymandering fate

Virginia Democrats are moving forward with plans to gerrymander their way to four more congressional seats — but they need help from the state’s top court.

After a lower court blocked Democrats’ efforts to amend the state Constitution and redraw federal congressional lines ahead of this fall’s midterm elections, the Virginia Court of Appeals requested the Virginia Supreme Court weigh in.

That puts the fate of the map — and potentially congressional control after the 2026 midterms — in the hands of a group of justices that observers say can be hard to predict.

Political and legal experts in Virginia agree the state Supreme Court is not overtly ideological, with many describing it as “small-c conservative,” leaning heavily on tradition and precedent rather than handing down ideologically right-wing rulings. And many observers say the court is wary of wading too heavily into political fights. But this time, it’s unavoidable.

Advertisement

“It’s kind of a state Supreme Court tradition to stay away from political matters whenever they can. They like to leave the legislating to the legislature. So this is going to be a really interesting test of that tradition,” said Carolyn Fiddler of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, who attended William & Mary Law School in Virginia and worked in state politics.

Virginia is one of only two states where the legislature elects Supreme Court justices. Because the state has had divided control for much of the past quarter century, the balance of the court’s justices were appointed by bipartisan compromise. The court’s current seven members include one justice who was elected when Democrats had sole control of the General Assembly, three when Republicans controlled both chambers and three when control of the legislature was split.

“I voted for all these people – every one of them — and I don’t think any of them are overly political. And they shouldn’t be,” said Virginia House of Delegates Minority Leader Del. Terry Kilgore (R), who said he thinks the court will rule in his side’s favor. “They just should follow the law. If they do, we win.”

The question before the Virginia Supreme Court is not if, but when, new maps are allowed to go into effect — and whether they’ll be in place for this year’s midterms.

Advertisement

Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) signed legislation scheduling a statewide referendum for April 21 last week, asking voters to grant state lawmakers the power to redraw federal Congressional lines immediately. It came a day after Democratic state lawmakers unveiled proposed maps that aim to tilt the congressional map 10-1, potentially handing Democrats four more House seats and leaving just one Republican in the federal delegation.

But a wrench was thrown in their plans when a circuit court judge in conservative Tazewell County ruled late last month that Virginia Democrats did not follow proper procedure when initiating the constitutional amendment.

To change the Virginia Constitution is a multi-step process, requiring approval by two separate sessions of the General Assembly with a statewide general election for the House of Delegates taking place in between those sessions.

Judge Jack Hurley ruled that because early voting was already underway when the General Assembly first passed the amendment last October, it should not count as the first step. If the Virginia Supreme Court agrees, the earliest the state could enact new maps is after the next legislative election in 2027 — a blow to Democrats’ hopes of winning back the House this fall.

Advertisement

It’s a question both sides hope the top court weighs in on – and quickly.

“If they answer the question that there was not an intervening election, which, that’s the big one … then the redistricting is dead,” said former Del. Tim Anderson (R), and who is a practicing attorney. “If they say that there was an intervening election, then the redistricting amendment will go forward.”

The next opening on the court’s docket for a new case is March 2, a tight timeline since that’s the same week early voting is scheduled to begin.

Jay O’Keeffe is a left-leaning appellate attorney based in Roanoke who has argued before the top court. He said it is not uncommon for the justices’ opinions to reference Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” the 18th century treatise often cited by those who interpret the law through an originalist, conservative-leaning reading of the law.

Advertisement

“The justices I’ve dealt with don’t seem to see themselves as political actors,”O’Keeffe said. “But you could imagine a more progressive court … approaching the whole job of judging in a different way.”

The question both Democrats and Republicans hope the Virginia Supreme Court will answer is whether the April referendum vote can proceed.

“In matters like this, the Supreme Court is going to try to call it right down the middle, and not on a political basis,” said Steve Emmert, a retired appellate lawyer. “What the parties need now is certainty, and they need it soon.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025