Thanks to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from Benefits and Work, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has released its latest Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessor training guide for neurodiverse claimants. Or at least, they’ve released around a quarter of it, anyway.

Ostensibly, the guide is intended to give ‘health professionals’ knowledge and understanding of Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Dyspraxia, Dyscalculia and Tourette’s Syndrome.

However, we don’t exactly know what the guide is really doing, because the DWP have chosen to redact huge swathes of it.

DWP indulge in huge redactions

The entire first section, a 17-page clinical overview, is blacked out. This would be a description of the particulars of each condition, and how they relate to workplace performance. The DWP claimed that the section is intended for future publication – as such, it’s exempt from FOI requests.

As Benefits and Work reported:

In their covering letter, the DWP say that they have now taken over producing training and guidance materials for health assessors and that “all training and guidance materials are currently undergoing a comprehensive review and update” using independent clinical experts to ensure they are accurate.

The department says it will publish the materials in the public domain once they have all been reviewed. They claim that “Releasing the current versions now would risk confusion and undermine the department’s efforts to provide clear, accurate and authoritative guidance.”

Of course, the department offered no explanation of why publishing the current guidance would actually cause confusion. Likewise, it also failed to offer any clue as to when it would actually publish the information (if it intends to do so at all).

Its claims of ‘future publication’ are also undone by the date on the redacted document, which states that it’s been in use since November 2025.

Hiding again

Of the second 15-page section, entitled ‘PIP’, only the first two pages are visible. Here, the DWP has changed tactics, claiming that its redactions are valid under a law-enforcement exemption. The would normally relate to withholding information which would interfere with the prevention or detection of a crime.

The DWP stated that:

providing detailed information for certain health conditions would allow a member of the public to use this information to make a claim to benefit to which they would not otherwise be entitled to.

And, as with Section 1’s redactions, we can tell that this is a complete and utter fabrication, too. As Benefits and Work rightly pointed out:

We know that according to the DWP’s own statistics, fraud in PIP is currently assessed to stand at 0.4%. For universal credit, the figure is 8%, twenty times higher.

Fraud in relation to ASD and ADHD is likely to be even lower, as these are conditions which cannot be diagnosed by a GP. If you planned to commit PIP fraud, these are not the first conditions you would be likely to choose.

Advertisement

And, of course, there’s the fact that the DWP has also redacted other guides on similarly spurious ground. Take, for example, their censoring of the in-house document on kidney failure – surely a condition that’s otherwise wide-open to benefit fraudsters.

Intentionally left blank

Finally, the department saved time with the third section – apparently on the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) – which announces only that:

This section has been intentionally left blank.

So that saves us some time, at least.

In reality, the DWP isn’t keeping this information back to prevent fraud or public confusion. Rather, it’s allowing itself room to deny claims on whatever flimsy reasoning it chooses, without transparency or accountability.

They know what releasing a blanked-out document makes them look like – they just reckon they can get away with it under the aegis of Labour’s minister for disabled people, Stephen Timms, and work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden.

These aren’t sensitive state secrets.

There are no active agents in the field to protect in the warzone of PIP assessments.

The DWP sure isn’t protecting the names and identities of its victims.

It’s a guide to neurodiversity in the workplace.

The fucking Epstein files were less heavily redacted.

This is simply what accountability looks like for disabled people under Starmer’s Labour.

As a final note, Benefits and Work included the following request:

The refusal to release training documents for these conditions is also likely to extend to every other condition the DWP produce guidance for – though if readers choose to make FoI requests for their own conditions to [email protected], we’d be very interested to hear the results.

Feel free to drop them a line.

Featured image via the Canary

MSPs have recently voted on the controversial assisted dying bill, subsequently rejecting the bill. After an intense and emotional debate, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults bill was defeated in Scotland by 69 votes to 57.

Liberal Democrat Liam McArthur tabled the proposal which would have allowed medical help for terminally-ill, mentally competent adults to end their lives.

To attempt to win the vote, several amendments were made by McArthur. Even so, his efforts failed at the bills third reading.

Scottish Parliament votes against legalising assisted dying in Scotland by 69 votes to 57 https://t.co/L7dxQ28qFy

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

Assisted dying coercion: too big a risk for Scotland MSPs

The debate was unsurprisingly emotionally intense, with many passionately speaking to their reasoning behind their support, or lack thereof, for the proposed bill. Supporters emphasised the relief it could provide to terminally ill Scots and their families, while critics raised significant concerns about the risk of misuse or coercion.

Amidst heated debate, some maintained that the focus should be on improving palliative care, ensuring that choosing to live is easier than choosing to die. Others argued that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive, and that we can both strengthen palliative care whilst supporting those who wish to have control over their deaths.

On X, MSP Dr Pam Gosal gave her reasoning behind her voting against assisted dying:

After much thought and consideration, I have decided to vote ‘No’ on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.

Firstly, there is a real fear that vulnerable people, including women who have suffered domestic abuse, could be coerced into taking their own… pic.twitter.com/IYvSbyt9Nt

Advertisement

— Dr Pam Gosal MBE MSP (@DrPamGosal) March 13, 2026

MSPs stood firm insisting that the risk for coercion is too great as it would potentially lead to the deaths of vulnerable people, particularly disabled Scots or women living under domestic abuse.

Disabled MSP Jeremy Balfour voted against and pleaded with his fellow colleagues to do likewise:

Jeremy Balfour tells MSPs that disabled people are “frightened” by the assisted dying Bill. “Colleagues, friends, I am begging you to consider what the consequences of passing this bill will be for the most vulnerable in our communities,” he says. pic.twitter.com/r3Ozc3xurH

— Andrew Learmonth (@andrewlearmonth) March 17, 2026

Advertisement

Poorly run state could incentivise people to end their lives

Likewise, SNP’s Ruth Maguire voted against the bill, speaking about how this might have shown up in her life. Maguire was diagnosed with stage 3 cervical cancer in 2021:

It’s not a free choice if you do not have access to good palliative care.

Adding:

My blood runs cold thinking about sitting in a room in hospital and having a doctor raise [assisted dying] with me as we weigh up treatment options.

Recent polling indicates that a majority in Scotland share MSPs’ concerns about the effects of underfunded state services. Inadequate palliative care, NHS provision, or social care could indirectly pressure disabled and vulnerable people toward seeking assistance to end their lives.

Slater: “We should all have the right to choose”

On the other hand, strong arguments were also given in support of the bill. This highlights how there is a need for a serious conversation about how we help those who are suffering with terminal illnesses whilst not risking the safety of those who might face undue influence.

Former Green co-leader Lorna Slater spoke of her father’s assisted death in Canada, fighting back tears she recounted her heartbreaking farewell to her father as “beautiful”. She stated:

We should all have the right to choose.

“It was beautiful. I wish that death for myself. I wish it for anyone who wants it for themselves.” Lorna Slater tells MSPs about her father’s assisted death in Canada. pic.twitter.com/Vz9UJ3rPUB

— Andrew Learmonth (@andrewlearmonth) March 17, 2026

The SNP’s George Adam referred to his wife watching in the public gallery, who has Multiple Sclerosis (MS), saying:

If the worst should ever come to her, if she was ever facing that unbearable suffering at the end of life, she would want a choice.

Conservative MSP and NHS GP Sandesh Gulhane quoted a patient who insisted:

You wouldn’t let a dog die like this.

Unperturbed, McArthur is continuing with trying to pass the bill:

“This is coming back.” Speaking to journalists in Holyrood after the defeat of his assisted dying bill, Liam McArthur says the public overwhelmingly want a change in the law. pic.twitter.com/aZnj4JL351

— Andrew Learmonth (@andrewlearmonth) March 17, 2026

Autonomy for all

This issue has generated deeply emotional debate on both sides, each advancing legitimate arguments over the substance of the bill. In essence, the issue of autonomy is at the core of this crucial and necessary conversation.

One side feels they have no control over how they live their final months. The other fears losing that control – and even their lives – against their wishes.

Both deserve autonomy, yet the debate sets them against one another.

The establishment has taken so much away from vulnerable people across the country, they rightly fear how that establishment might coerce them into their own demise. All the while, society has long ignored the suffering of terminally ill people. And, a hostility to disabled people is baked into our culture. It is little wonder, then, that the assisted dying debate is so emotional.

A solution must be found that prioritises autonomy for both groups. Not leave a suffering group with no autonomy, for fear another group might lose theirs. Compassion and dignity need not be a zero-sum equation.

Featured image via the Canary

The Farage Effect has finally hit a brick wall and it’s fucking beautiful. Yes, that same Nigel Farage who once branded himself as the voice of the “silent majority” in the UK. Well, new data suggests that the majority isn’t silent, it’s fucking disgusted.

Recent polling confirms that Reform UK is the most disliked political party in Scotland. Farage, despite being an establishment stooge has decided to pick a fight with the very people who count the votes.

Farage attacks the messenger

The Reform UK leader is launching desperate new attacks on the pollster YouGov. The Reform leader has accused the company of trying to “suppress the true figures” in regards to the party’s popularity.

Reform are strong in all of the polls except @YouGov.

They are using bizarre adjustments to suppress the true figures.

Advertisement

No wonder their share price has fallen by over 80 percent in recent years! pic.twitter.com/ooEqsiIRBH

— Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) March 11, 2026

In a direct challenge to YouGov’s methodology, Farage alleged that “bizarre adjustments” were being used to downplay his success. Writing to the polling company he claims that its results regarding Reform UK were five points below that of other firms.

This is a classic move from his old playbook. Farage has a long history of screaming fraud whenever numbers do not seem to fit his narrative. By attacking the methodology, he tries to drum up paranoia within his fan base, convincing them they are being silenced by the very establishment he serves.

The fascist market is stalling

The maths doesn’t lie though. The UK isn’t just ignoring him, it is actively pulling away from his toxic politics. Polling expert John Curtice notes that Farage’s support seems to be stalling.

Curtice warned that the party remains a niche market and is failing to win over soft voters needed for sustainable growth. He observed that:

“=The Farage effect appears to have run its course.

And let’s be honest, there’s only so long a party can continue to blame immigrants for everything whilst simultaneously covering the arses of big businesses without people beginning to get bored with them. You can’t break away from your core demographic if all you’re going to do is offer hatred instead of solid solutions to real problems.

This is a dangerous comment.

Polls should be independent and reflect reality, not what you think reality should be.

Advertisement

To pressure a company to report you as higher than they think you are is thuggish and authoritarian.

Politics should be better than underhand games. https://t.co/Rejpi6ZlS3

— James MacCleary MP (@JamesMacCleary) March 11, 2026

The “most disliked” label is an electoral death sentence, one that was echoed with the result in Gorton & Denton. Reform UK is now the most disliked party in the UK, with a staggering 61% of the public now viewing them unfavourably in Scotland.

“Silent majority” my arse.

A wall of dislike

The numbers aren’t looking good for Farage. More people dislike the Reform party than any other major party in the North. Its unfavorability rating is a significant barrier to any future expansion. And it’s fucking beautiful.

High dislike levels tend to trigger massive tactical voting. And in this case it could indicate people are going to unite specifically to keep Reform UK out of power. This tactical squeeze is exactly what Curtice warned would happen. The facts are simple. Over 60% of people in Scotland cannot fucking stand the party. On top of this, roughly 58% of voters would support a candidate they don’t even like, just to stop Reform UK from gaining power.

Those aren’t good numbers. But they’re hilarious.

Is this the end of the road?

Farage thrives on being a hyperbolic arsehole, he loves being insurgent. However, no one can lead a fascist revolution when the majority of an entire chunk of voters want to keep them out of the room. Whilst Farage screams about bias, the reality is that his brand has become a toxic repellent to anyone with a lick of common sense.

By leaning into extremist rhetoric, he has ensured that Reform UK remains a political pariah. Voters aren’t just choosing other parties, they are actively choosing anyone else to stop Reform UK.

Farage’s own shitty rhetoric has created a ceiling that he cannot smash. Whilst his core fandom remains loud, he has now become absolutely repellent to the rest of the electorate. The numbers suggest that his silent army is rapidly running out of recruits and it is delicious.

The more he screams about “bizarre adjustments”, the more he sounds like a desperate man who knows the game is up. If he can’t break through this wall of dislike, Reform UK will remain a loud, angry fringe.

Thank fuck.

Featured image via the Canary

Lisa Nandy announced the move to a permanent charter on Tuesday (Alamy)

3 min read40 min

On Tuesday night, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, announced that the BBC charter would be put on a permanent footing for the first time.

The cabinet minister said that “while the terms, the structures and the funding for the BBC will continue to be negotiated”, the move would end the “bizarre situation where if the charter isn’t agreed in time, the BBC ceases to exist”.

Under the current setup, the BBC charter is renewed every 10 years. Senior BBC figures, including the outgoing director general, Tim Davie, had been pushing for a permanent arrangement, arguing that it would protect the corporation’s long-term stability.

“We will act to future-proof this vital institution in these stormy times when public debate feels more toxic and polarised than ever, and too often the BBC becomes a lightning rod for the ongoing, exhausting culture wars,” Nandy told a Society of Editors conference in London.

A Survation poll, conducted before the announcement for campaign organisation 38 Degrees and shared with PoliticsHome, found that 44 per cent of respondents supported a permanent charter. In contrast, 13 per cent said they wanted the BBC’s future to be debated every decade. 

A majority of people who voted Labour (54 per cent), Conservative (50 per cent), and Green (50 per cent) at the 2024 general election backed a permanent charter for the BBC, while nearly half of Lib Dem voters (49 per cent) did so. 

The least supportive voter 2024 group was those who backed Reform UK at the last election, with 36 per cent supporting the move and 21 per cent opposing it.

There was also support across the age groups, with a majority of 25-34-year-olds (52 per cent) and 65-plus (50 per cent) telling Survation they supported a permanent BBC charter. 

The BBC’s role and funding have become a growing talking point in recent years, with Nigel Farage’s Reform vowing to end the licence fee if elected.

Controversies such as the corporation’s coverage of Bob Vylan’s 2025 Glastonbury set, when the act chanted “death, death to the IDF [Israel Defence Forces]”, have also led to enhanced political pressure from critics. 

However, the government has sought to defend the BBC, with Nandy this week describing it as “one of the two most important institutions in our country”, the other being the NHS.

Nandy insisted, however, that the move to a permanent charter would not lead to a reduction in accountability for the BBC, saying that the Labour government intended “to strengthen the accountability of the leadership of the BBC – not to politicians – but to the people it serves in every nation and region”.

Matthew McGregor, CEO at 38 Degrees, said the 10-year charter renewal system had been “a cloud of uncertainty hanging over one of our most valued national institutions”.

“Voters have no appetite to see our national broadcaster’s very existence under threat every 10 years. In announcing a permanent royal charter for the BBC, the government has made a popular, common-sense decision that is in line with public opinion,” he told PoliticsHome.

Damian Lyons Lowe, founder and chief executive at Survation, said: “The polling points to a clear, broad-based tilt towards greater long-term certainty for the BBC.

“Although many take a neutral view, the balance of opinion suggests the public is more comfortable with a settled arrangement than with periodically reopening the question of the BBC’s future.”

The poll surveyed 2,077 UK adults online between 13 and 16 March. 

Dr Martin Parsons is the author of a book on Conservativism and is a former overseas aid worker in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There’s a definite irony in the fact the government have finally announced its official definition of Islamophobia, or as they now term it, ‘Anti-Muslim hostility’ when UK armed forces are engaged in defence against hostile actions from Iran.

I say that, because if you want to understand why there has been such a longstanding campaign for an official definition of Islamophobia, you need to go back to the Islamic revolution in Iran. The creation of the world’s first modern Islamist state in 1979 inspired Islamists around the world to emulate it in their own countries.

However, the first country to actually do so, was Pakistan, then a military dictatorship led by General Zia ul-Haq. Zia wasn’t actually an Islamist, but he saw the political advantage of shoring up his position by appealing to those inspired by events in Iran.

In 1982 he amended Pakistan’s Penal Code by introducing a law against desecrating the Qur’an. Then in 1986, a far more wide-ranging clause was added criminalising even implied or indirect criticism of Muhammad, effectively meaning that any criticism of Islam itself was potentially punishable by death. In fact, if you wanted a definition of Anti-Islamic ‘hostility’ s.295C of Pakistan’s Penal Code is pretty all embracing

“Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death.”

Pakistan already had incitement to religious hatred laws since British rule, but for the first time it now introduced laws which applied solely to Islam.

The demand for an Islamic blasphemy law quickly spread to the UK where a significant part of the Muslim community had family ties with Pakistan. However, it only really gained traction three years later with the Rushdie affair in 1989.

Most British Muslim organisations had wisely decided to quietly ignore Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses so as not to give it the oxygen of publicity. However, the Islamic Foundation, which was heavily influenced by the work of Mawdudi, the founding father of modern Islamism in the Indian subcontinent, saw it as an opportunity to galvanise support. Its high-profile campaign for the book to be banned was linked to calls for an Islamic blasphemy law. If there was one key point in the radicalisation of a significant minority of British Muslims, it was this.

Then in 1997, while the Rushdie affair was still sore in the minds of many British Muslims, the Runneymede Trust produced a report Islamophobia: a challenge for us all thereby introducing that term to public debate. Whilst widely lauded today that report actually sowed the seeds of later problems by defining Islamophobia as “dread or hatred of Islam and of Muslims” – effectively conflating protecting a belief system with protecting people.

The word ‘Islamophobia’ was then jumped on by Islamists around the world. In 2005 the OIC produced a ten-year strategy whose section on ‘combatting Islamophobia’ made no reference whatsoever to protecting Muslims from hate. Instead, it solely referred to protecting the religion of Islam from “defamation” and called for deterrent punishments to be introduced to counter it in western countries. Effectively, it was calling for an Islamic blasphemy law to be created across the west, under the guise of tackling ‘Islamophobia’.

At the same time, Tony Blair’s 2003 decision to go to war in Iraq proved the catalyst to actually achieve this as Labour’s previously rock-solid hold on the Muslim vote began to haemorrhage significantly to the Lib-Dems who opposed the war. Blair responded with a pledge in Labour’s 2005 manifesto to introduce a law against incitement to religious hatred. This was understood by many Muslim organisations as being the Islamic blasphemy law they had been campaigning for since the Rushdie affair sixteen years earlier.

However, the legislation largely failed to achieve its aim when the government lost a crucial vote on a Lord’s amendment to only make ‘threatening’ comments about religion illegal, not ‘abusive’ or ‘insulting’ ones. Ironically, Blair himself failed to attend the vote resulting in the government losing by a single vote.

However, the campaign against ‘Islamophobia’ continued largely focused on ‘educating’ the public sector. In doing so, it repeatedly conflated the legitimate aspiration of protecting Muslims as people, with attempts to proscribe any criticism of Islam.

In 2018 an All Party Parliamentary Group produced what it called a working definition of Islamophobia, which defined it as a type of racism that targets “expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” It was a definition which seemed innocuous enough until one realised that “expressions of Muslimness” included anything related to the religion of Islam.

The importance of making that distinction was laid bare in a report published only a year later by the Commission for Countering Extremism, which noted that

“One of the biggest successes of mainstream Islamists in Britain is, in fact, the campaign to normalise Islamophobia in public discourse as a concept that blurs the distinction between genuine anti-Muslim bigotry and the legitimate criticism of Islamism, outdated shari’a precepts and the illiberal practices justified by them.”

However, by this time the Labour Party had already committed itself to the APPG Islamophobia definition.

The shock loss of five supposedly safe Labour seats to Gaza independents in the 2024 general election sent shockwaves through the party and heightened demands for the government to formally adopt an official definition of Islamophobia.

But Keir Starmer also faced with a chorus of protest that the APPG definition of Islamophobia risked becoming a backdoor Islamic blasphemy law. He therefore appointed former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve to lead a working group to come up with a better definition. The result now finally published, is a vague definition of ‘Anti-Muslim hostility’ that as Sir John Jenkins recently observed in a paper for Policy Exchange is potentially even broader than the APPG definition of Islamophobia.

In the same way that Pakistan’s 1982 and 1986 blasphemy laws broke new ground with laws which solely protected Islam, so this definition provides special protections to Muslims not extended to Christians or other minorities. What Keir Starmer may also not appreciate, is that his actions in pushing this policy to shore up his own political support, do not simply mirror those of Tony Blair after the Iraq war, but also those of General Zia, Pakistan’s military dictator who introduced the country’s Islamic blasphemy laws in the 1980s.

Three months before the general election the Commission for Countering Extremism published another report, which noted that ‘blasphemy extremism’ which has exploded in Pakistan in recent years and particularly targets Christians, Ahmadiyya Muslims and other minorities, is now gaining momentum in the UK.

Far from tackling extremism, this official definition of Anti-Muslim hostility may actually fuel it.

In his first official comment on one of the most controversial issues in the history of African football, Patrice Motsepe acknowledged a clear contradiction in the decisions of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) committees, following the stripping of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) title from Senegal and its awarding to Morocco by a decision of the Appeals Committee.

The case, which sparked an unprecedented storm, dates back to the final, which Senegal won on the field (1-0) after extra time. However, the Appeals Committee reopened the case from a legal standpoint, arguing that what happened during the match—particularly the withdrawal and subsequent reversal of that decision—renders the victory illegitimate, thus administratively overturning the result to a 3-0 loss.

AFCON storm

Amidst an initial decision by the Disciplinary Committee upholding Senegal’s title, and a completely contradictory decision by the Appeals Committee, CAF president Motsepe issued statements asserting that “both decisions should be viewed as fair.” He emphasized that both committees comprise “among the most respected judges and lawyers on the continent,” in an attempt to contain a widening crisis of confidence within African football circles.

He continued:

If you look at the composition of those bodies, they reflect some of the most respected lawyers and judges on the continent. These are people who have integrity and have a track record. The independence is reflected by the decisions that were taken by the two bodies.

However, the most significant message in the CAF president’s statements was the implicit acknowledgment, rather than denial, of the magnitude of the crisis. He expressed his “frustration” with the spectacle of the tournament final, considering what transpired a threat to the efforts made over years to establish the principles of integrity and credibility in the administration of the game on the continent.

In parallel, Motsepe opened the door to legal escalation, affirming Senegal’s right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with CAF’s prior commitment to respecting the final ruling. This move effectively transfers the case from the corridors of the continental federation to the international sports judiciary.

The CAF president concluded his remarks with a message that goes beyond the decision itself, when he indicated that the “view of the public” in the 54 member countries represents the true standard of the federation’s credibility, in an acknowledgment that reflects a growing awareness that the crisis is no longer just a legal one, but has turned into a public test of the African public’s trust in its football institutions.

Featured image via the Canary

Stars Mohamed Salah and Lamine Yamal achieved historic milestones in the Champions League during the second leg of the Round of 16. Salah led Liverpool to a stunning comeback, while Yamal continued to break records in a Barcelona shirt.

Liverpool secured a resounding 4-0 victory over Galatasaray, overturning their 1-0 first-leg deficit and advancing to the quarter finals with a 4-1 aggregate score.

Salah achieved an exceptional feat, becoming the first African player to reach 50 goals in the competition’s history. Despite a shaky first half in which he missed a penalty and a clear-cut chance, he roared back in the second half, scoring one goal and providing two assists, leading his team to a decisive victory.

Salah joined by Yamal

In another match, Barcelona secured a resounding 7-2 victory over Newcastle United, a match that saw Lamine Djamel etch his name in the competition’s history books.

The young Spanish star set a new record, becoming the youngest player to reach 10 Champions League goals at 18 years and 248 days old, surpassing the previous record held by Kylian Mbappé (18 years and 350 days).

Between Salah’s dazzling experience and Gamal’s rapid rise, the tournament continues to deliver exceptional nights where records are made and major details are decided.

Featured image via the Canary