With grim predictability, the far-right US government has waded into the controversy surrounding the tragic death of Henry Nowak. A US State Department post on social media offered mealy-mouthed “condolences” to Henry’s family, though only after a tight string of fascist dogwhistles.

In particular, the Trump administration repeated Farage’s ridiculous ‘two-tier’ anti-white policing claim. This is fitting, given the Reform UK leader shamelessly exploited Nowak’s murder to attack DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives.

As the Canary previously pointed out, Farage clearly received this talking point directly from Trump’s fascist America. In the UK, ‘DEI’ is better known as ‘EDI’ (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion).

Beyond this, the ‘two-tier’ policing claim is also a classic example of the abuse tactic reversing the victim and offender, writ large. Two-tier policing very much exists, only to the clear detriment of Black and Brown people across the UK.

Disgusting weaponisation of Henry Nowak’s murder

On the night of 4 June, the US State Department posted on social media:

Ideological conditioning and two-tiered policing are glaring symptoms of civilizational decline. They must be rejected across the West.

The United States sends our condolences to the family of Henry Nowak and the people of the United Kingdom at this troubling time.

As we keep having to repeat, Nowak’s family expressed their wishes that their son’s death wouldn’t be used to spread hatred and division. However, it’s completely unsurprising that the US government is doing just that by repeating dogwhistle claims of ‘two-tiered policing‘.

Likewise, the claim of “civilizational decline” is, at its heart, a fascist talking point. As Oxford professor of modern history James McDougall pointed out just before Trump’s first term:

Fascism brings a masculinist, xenophobic nationalism that claims to “put the people first” while turning them against one another. […]

A view of the world is presented that is centred on fears of “national suicide” and civilisational decline, in which whites are demographically overwhelmed by “inferior” peoples, minorities and immigrants.

‘Two-tier policing’

Meanwhile, the claim to ‘two-tier policing’ in the UK is obviously correct, though in the exact opposite manner to which Farage and his fash buddies intended it.

On 4 June, Stephen Parkinson – director of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service – explained that:

There is disproportionality in the criminal justice system. There’s an evidential basis for that. We have published research by Leeds University examining prosecution decisions. We updated that the end of last year.

It does demonstrate conclusively that there is disproportionality, by which I mean that there’s a greater likelihood of being prosecuted if you come from an ethnic group that is not white British.

Advertisement

Your starting point was two-tier justice, and I think recent publicity has been along the lines of: are people from ethnic minorities favoured in some way? The evidence that I’m aware of around disproportionality goes the other way.

That two-tier justice favouring white people is particularly evident in the Hampshire police – the same force which arrested Henry Nowak for a fabricated racialised assault, even as he lay dying of five stab wounds.

As the Guardian highlighted, the most recent policing data shows that officers across England and Wales are 3.8 times more likely to use stop and search powers against a Black person than a white person. However, in Hampshire, that disproportionality shoots up to 5.1 times.

Worse still, the problem has only increased in recent years. In 2023-4, Hampshire police were 4.1 times more likely to stop a Black person. That rose to 4.8 times in 2024-5, and then to 5.1 times in 2025-6.

White supremacy

The UK’s police force is an institutionally racist arm of an institutionally racist state, and rotten to its very core. Figures like Farage, who claim that even half-hearted efforts at reform are evidence of ‘anti-white racism’, actively endanger the pitiful progress towards equality the UK has tried to make.

The Reform UK leader, the Trump administration and their ilk know exactly what they’re doing. They want to ensure that the racist status quo remains, that it becomes even more firmly entrenched. They’ll use any lie, trick, and power at their disposal to do so.

Anything to continue to expand white supremacy.

Featured image via Getty/Jonathan Bachman

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

Newly revealed documents expose Labour’s Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander as a devoted friend of Peter Mandelson, publicly humiliating his position.

Mandelson was “influential,” in Alexander’s own words, in securing his seat as MP for Lothian East. The SNP have called for the minister’s resignation over his apparently doting relationship with Mandelson.

The disgraced corrupt former ambassador and friend of notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein was well-known, well-loved, and well-connected within the Labour Party. Him and pro-corporate stooge Tony Blair shaped vile New Labour through a willingness to court power, whatever ugly face it took.

However, those tight connections across the right wing (now mainstream) of the Labour Party are coming back to bite. It’s about time for figures like Alexander who so willingly courted Mandy’s ilk.

The Peter Mandelson Network

Evermore ‘influential’ Mandelson connections

These recent revelations come after the government realised over 1,000 pages of documents relating to the Dark Lord’s appointment as UK ambassador to the US by Starmer-McSweeney.

In the files it’s clear that Douglas Alexander was in regular contact with Mandelson prior to his appointment as ambassador. He also credits Mandelson with his selection and election as an MP in 2024.

Writing to Mandy about his chances of getting elected at the 2024 general election, Alexander said:

There’s v little enthusiasm for Labour but a quiet determination to secure change which is our greatest ally.

You could say that again – and again. But most revealing was on 7 July 2024, three days after the general election, following Alexander’s appointment as Trade Minister. He wrote to Mandelson declaring:

You probably don’t realise quite how influential you’ve been in this whole improbable journey.

He is essentially crediting Mandelson with helping him to secure the win. As the Canary previously reported, Mandelson was instrumental in Labour NEC 2024 general election selection procedures.

Alexander said publicly in May that Mandelson “should not have been appointed”. Yet following Mandelson’s appointment back in December 2024, Alexander messaged Mandy directly to say it was:

good news for you, for the government and for the country.

Alexander is far from alone. Mandelson was also congratulated by then-Scottish Secretary, Ian Murray, Alexander’s predecessor in-post. Murray messaged Mandy:

Congratulations your excellency. What a wonderful appointment.

It goes right to the top, too. Darren Jones, for example, privately messaged to say he was “so sorry” to see Mandy sacked in disgrace in September 2025.

It was common knowledge throughout that Mandelson had been twice sacked from ministerial positions and was also close friends with pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Mandelson was involved in ‘dumping’ Labour candidates before the 2024 election

Calls for resignation: a ‘mere puppet’

The SNP reacted quickly, calling for Alexander to quit his role as Scottish Secretary over the revelations. One SNP MSP in particular, Alex Kerr, did not hold back:

Douglas Alexander was a mere puppet for his master Mandelson and these shadowy redactions just make this sinister affair all the more despicable.

Douglas Alexander must resign and the public must be given full disclosure on whether our national security has been threatened by meetings at the instruction of Peter Mandelson.

SNP Westminster leader Dave Doogan wrote to the government’s independent standards adviser:

Despite clear obligations and processes to transparently log ministerial meetings, Mr Alexander failed to publicly declare this meeting with Peter Mandelson’s lobbying firm for a year and a half.

The SNP have now gone a step further. They’ve demanded a probe into whether Mandelson’s influence might have constituted a ministerial code breach by Alexander.

The recently revealed files indicate that Alexander was introduced to a lobbying firm with ties to foreign states Russia and China. This was not declared at the time or since.

The lobbying firm Global Counsel was set up in 2010 by Mandelson for a lucrative career after repeatedly failing in his duties to the public as an MP and multi-minister. Mandelson stepped down as director in 2024 but remains financially staked in the company.

The messages reveal that Alexander’s very first meeting, via online call, was — perhaps unsurprisingly — with that same lobbying firm, Global Counsel. Funny coincidence, eh?

Featured image via Stefan Rousseau/WPA Pool/Getty Images

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

The past week in Parliament has seen two major blows for AI-peddler Palantir. In a highly unusual Commons debate, MPs including Jeremy Corbyn laid bare the links that disgraced ambassador Peter Mandelson forged between the UK government and the authoritarian US tech company.

Mandelson lost his position after his ties to pedophile ringleader Jeffrey Epstein came to light. In a blow to PM Keir Starmer, it later transpired that Mandelson was handed the ambassadorial post in spite of failing his security vetting.

Meanwhile, an influential cross-party science committee condemned the public sector’s increasing reliance of Palantir’s AI as placing the UK “at the mercy” of foreign actors.

Palantir secret meetings

On 3 June, the Science, Information and Technology Select Committee warned that “Palantir’s increasing presence” in the public sector is an “unacceptable point of weakness”. Committee member and Lib Dem MP Martin Wrigley, told the Canary he was “delighted” with the conclusion:

We cannot continue to rely upon American technology […] especially when this one is a ‘software as a service’, so it’s entirely virtual – the NHS doesn’t have any hardware or any software,and they could pull it from underneath us at any time, at the whim of Donald Trump, or if there were any difficulty, or even if the contract stops abruptly. It could just go.

Wrigley also took the opportunity to reiterate a statement he made in the Commons debate on 3 June:

Yesterday, I got a letter from Louis Mosley [UK Palantir CEO] telling me that Peter Mandelson was not involved in Palantir’s defence contract in the UK. However, this is directly contradicted by a statement Jeremy Corbyn made in the house yesterday. I’m waiting for the evidence from Jeremy Corbyn, but of the two of them, I think I believe Jeremy Corbyn.

In the Commons, Wrigley mentioned that Palantir was all over the Mandelson files. That included:

a memo in which [Mandelson] tries to introduce Peter Thiel to No. 10 staff in June last year.

Minister for the cabinet Nick Thomas-Symonds denied that allegation strenuously. Rejecting the “suggestion that there is any wrongdoing” regarding the renewal of the Palantir contracts, he added:

I reject that absolutely. On the meeting between the Prime Minister and Peter Thiel, to be clear, that did not happen.

Note the slippage here. Wrigley talked about a meeting with Downing Street staff; Thomas-Symonds denied a meeting with Starmer. Those two things are not the same.

Debate ‘goes to the heart’ of UK politics

When it came time for Corbyn to make his speech, he began by lamenting the pitiful number of MPs attending. The debate, he acknowledged:

goes to the heart of so much about the political system of this country, and the power and influence of very wealthy people around the world.

He thanked Alex Davies-Jones for centering the victims of Epstein and his golden circle, before moving on the the central subject of Mandelson. He recalled a conversation with ex-Labour MP Tony Benn, who:

recognised that Mandelson’s whole objective was a political one: to take the Labour party away from its roots—away from its trade union connections and the working-class communities—and to turn it into a party of business.

Of course, there was no more pertinent illustration of Mandelson’s corrupt connections between business and government than Palantir.

‘Is that corrupt or what?’

Corbyn apparently came to the debate fully prepared. He launched into a play-by-play account of the Palantir scandal, beginning:

On 22 July 2025—less than a year ago—Peter Mandelson sent an email to Morgan McSweeney. The subject was a name: Peter Thiel [Palantir co-founder]. Mandelson wrote: “This celebrated techie is in London til Aug 9. I don’t know whether you have been approached already,” saying it would be good for the PM to meet him—so the ambassador to Washington starts trying to set up meetings with a tech entrepreneur who happens to be a friend and supporter of Donald Trump.

That damning email was from the second wave of the Mandelson files. It was one of many in which the disgraced ambassador “personally connected” Palantir to the UK Government.

The Islington MP also highlighted that Mandelson, at the time, still owned consulting company Global Counsel. In fact, he disregarded official advice to divest himself of his stake in the company in 2024. And, of course, Palantir was a Global Counsel client. As Corbyn put it:

Is that corrupt or what?

‘The mysterious meeting… nobody was at’

Corbyn also appeared to correct Thomas-Symonds on his little mistake regarding the alleged meeting:

We also know that the Prime Minister met representatives of the firm with Peter Mandelson in Washington. That was the mysterious meeting that apparently nobody was at, although it did happen; of which there is no record, and yet everybody was there; and during which no discussion went on because nothing was reported, and yet we all know that it took place because they were filmed going into it.

That non-meeting took place just two weeks after Mandelson started as ambassador. Likewise, mere days later, he attended the Hill and Valley Forum in Washington – a noted mixer for US congress members and weapons-tech specialists. Corbyn highlighted that:

the file notes that Mandelson was attending “with Louis”, who we understand to be Louis Mosley, the head of Palantir’s UK business. And so, this very tight connection of people goes on.

According to Ethan Shone of openDemocracy, Mandelson’s security “mitigations” forbade such one-to-one meetings with former clients like Palantir—a restriction which, like divestment from Global Counsel, the former ambassador assiduously ignored.

Advertisement

Is the UK so incapable?

Corbyn concluded by, in turn, reinforcing the science select committee’s message:

Are we seriously saying that we, as a society and country, are incapable of setting up our own technology arrangement? I do want data sharing within the NHS. […] I want that technology in place for A&E departments, but I do not want those records to be shared with a company that is busy advising Israel on how it will go about its bombardment of Gaza and trying to get hold of other contracts all around the world.

Sadly, Starmer’s government apparently believes this country truly is that incapable. This week alone, it announced yet another deal with Palantir – this time a £90,000 contract to manage a UK firearms database. The contract may be signed and sealed as early as 11 June.

Featured image via Getty/Eugene Gologursky

By Alex/Rose Cocker

Source link

Five Just Stop Oil supporters who have served prison sentences of up to 15 months for planning an action at Heathrow airport that never took place have had their convictions upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Rosa Hicks, Adam Beard, Sean O’Callaghan, Sally Davidson and Hannah Schafer were among eight Just Stop Oil supporters convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance after standing trial before Judge Duncan at Isleworth Crown Court in March 2025.

A ninth supporter was acquitted and another pleaded guilty before trial. Of the nine convicted, five were given jail terms of up to 15 months, while the remaining four were given suspended sentences.

They were the first people to be jailed in this country for an agreement to take part in nonviolent direct action, where no actual damage or disruption resulted.

Heathrow Five raise questions over jury integrity

In separate appeals heard on 12 May, the five argued that their convictions were unsafe. This followed a report from one juror to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal that another juror had made internet searches about the defendants and the Just Stop Oil campaign and shared highly prejudicial and partially false information within the jury room.

The Appeal heard evidence about the inadequacy of the police investigation that followed the report of misconduct. In particular, the police returned to the suspect juror two electronic devices which were clearly relevant to the case, which compromised them as evidential sources, and made no meaningful efforts to access the suspect juror’s two iPhones. No credible explanation was advanced by the police for these investigative failings.

At a preparatory hearing ahead of the appeal and prior to the suspect juror’s search history data being obtained, the government’s barrister Paul Jarvis claimed that the juror who had reported the jury misconduct was lying despite there being an ongoing police investigation into the matter.

In a ruling on 5 June, three senior judges – Andrew Edis, Maura McGowan and Martin Griffiths dismissed all the grounds for appeal and upheld the conviction.

The appellants released the following statement:

We are sad that the Court of Appeal has chosen to uphold our convictions despite overwhelming evidence that something went very wrong in the jury room, but we are of course not surprised.

The outcome of our appeal today marks a growing trend of using the justice system to crackdown on people trying to hold the powerful to account, be that the fossil fuel industry or the companies selling arms to Israel.

The appeal judgement changes nothing. Last month was the hottest, driest May in the UK since records began and our government and institutions are still failing in their most basic duty to protect us.

Whilst a successful appeal would have come with some personal benefit, our appeal has revealed something much more consequential for the rule of law.

Our conviction was engineered by a Judge who directed the jury to ignore evidence related to the climate crisis, which the judge referred to as a matter of opinion.

Advertisement

This was despite undisputed evidence admitted in court, that global heating will have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity.

It’s not surprising if trust breaks down when judges actively mislead a jury. That is where the responsibility for juror misconduct lies.

In cases like ours, when it must be obvious to jurors that so much is being kept from them inside the courtroom it makes sense that they might go looking for clues outside.

Throughout the appeal process, there has been a series of delays and misdirections on behalf of the crown. Not only did the police lose key evidence but they made attempts to close the investigation into juror misconduct prior to vital evidence being obtained.

Advertisement

Perhaps most shocking of all, despite an ongoing police investigation into the matter, the lawyer for the CPS repeatedly claimed that the juror who reported the juror misconduct was lying. The police and Crown Prosecution Service maintaining their prosecutions at all costs is not justice.

We did not seek to blame any of the jurors who tried us. We want to thank the juror who came forward to blow the whistle on what happened in the jury room during our trial. They have shown courage and integrity, they didn’t have to speak up, but they did.

The Heathrow 10 were arrested on 24 July 2024, on the first day of the Oil Kills International Uprising to end fossil fuels.

During their trial the judge removed all legal defences from the jury’s consideration, ruled the climate emergency to be ‘irrelevant’ and forbade defendants from mentioning that a jury has a right to acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience.

The defendants were not permitted to bring expert witnesses on international law or climate science or to show the jury videos they recorded of themselves speaking before the action, nor were they allowed to read the quotes from news articles about their arrests and subsequent remand to prison.

Featured image via Just Stop Oil

By The Canary

Source link

The post ‘The elites have never stopped sneering since’ appeared first on spiked.

Source link

Labour MP Jess Asato has announced that she has initiated a legal test case against Elon Musk’s xAI. The case will take to task Grok AI’s creation of fake, pornographic and derogatory content seen in January.

Attracting particular condemnation is the fact that the AI tool produced a demeaning, offensive and frankly, dangerous video which showed the MP:

being chloroformed and prepared for sexual assault.

Grok AI and its prolific creation of sexualised content, including of young children, has prompted widespread anger as it became clear the business model was happy to make money out of the most abusive and sinister views held by paedophiles, perverts, and rapists.

It then comes as little surprise that others affected by Grok have now joined the legal test case against Musk following Jess Asato’s decision to confront the billionaire head-on.

The legal case specifically argues that xAI violated data protection law and breached Asato’s private information when it permitted the images to be created.

New claimants seek to sue Elon Musk’s xAI after Labour MP’s test case
Jess Asato’s lawyer says others want to take action over demeaning sexualised material created by Grok AI toolhttps://t.co/XYOs5Lutlw

— dave lawrence (@dave43law) June 5, 2026

Musk faces another legal challenge

Back in January, Musk’s AI tool Grok generated approximately 3 million sexualised pictures in less than two weeks, which researchers said:

became an industrial-scale machine for the production of sexual abuse material.

One concerning aspect to this is the fact that the AI tool had no issues with requests such as “remove her clothes” or “put her in a bikini”. In reality, the tool will generate almost anything a user asks for – including these sexualised images of women without consent. Subsequently, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) launched an inquiry into Grok AI and the images it has produced.

Justifiably, many women feel their privacy is being undermined. After all, even when victims know the images are fake, they can still look real enough to humiliate, demean, and leave people feeling exposed. Let’s face it, if it didn’t, these kinds of men wouldn’t be so interested.

Moreover, its creation of child sexual abuse content drives home the fact that this tool has played into incredibly sinister, pervasive, and perverted mentalities amongst abusive men. When women and girls already face rising levels of abuse and violence, this increased threat financed by a soon-to-be trillionaire is a worrying sign for the direction of travel in the West.

Therefore, it is restoring to see victims of this abuse stepping forward to hold the tech giant to account for the abuse he has fostered and facilitated.

The legal director of the law firm AWO, Ravi Naik, confirmed to the Guardian he is acting for “multiple individuals”, and stated on the firm’s website:

At its heart, this case is about a single principle – that AI developers must answer for the way they design their tools. Where there is a wrong, the law must provide a remedy – and that is as true of artificial intelligence as of anything else.

No one should be subjected to abuse like this, and no one should have to instruct a lawyer to get images like these taken down.

This content existed because of design choices made by xAI, and technology of this kind does not simply happen. It is built, and it is built deliberately. Grok was designed in a way that permitted the creation of non-consensual, sexualised and misogynistic images of women – and that outcome was a choice, not a glitch.

This is one of the first claims to test liability for the design of an AI system, and we hope it will make it clear to AI developers that safety cannot be an afterthought.

Advertisement

Asato: ‘Literally strips your clothes off and makes you vulnerable’

Asato has spoken to the “psychologically distressing” impact it has as a woman to have fake nude images made without consent, and insists that her legal challenge is necessary to ensure that AI companies have a responsibility in what it’s products enable, stating:

Grok created deepfake pornography and sexualised content which harmed thousands of women and children.

Its ability is not an accident, nor misuse, it is a design choice by its creators. In launching this case, I am pursuing accountability for those choices.

I hope this legal action also gives voice to the thousands of victims in the UK, women, girls and horrifically even children, who were abused by Grok. I am calling on anyone in the UK who experienced the misuse of their image or video by Grok to come forward and support our legal claim.

This escalating abuse targeting Asato came after she called for the introduction of an anti-nudification act to combat these sexualised attacks.

Let’s be honest, serious – and thus proven – concerns exist that men will misuse this AI tool if allowed to. Even if Musk insists that is not its intended purpose, creeps can still exploit it to create and spread harmful material under the radar. Especially when its creators do nothing to stop it and instead, draw profits from such sordid interests.

Going further, a particular worry is that when tech platforms don’t properly guard against this kind of pervasive use, it starts to normalise it. And once that happens, it becomes easier for sexualised harassment and abuse to spread, escalate, and feel even more acceptable online. Needless to say, as we see generally in society, what becomes normalised online soon becomes normalised in daily life.

As a result, women, girls and children are left increasingly exposed to harm – and one of the world’s most powerful men is enabling it.

The government must be made to take REAL action

Whether Musk will take heed of this legal challenge awaits to be seen – he didn’t seem concerned back in January when this happened. In fact, he shared hateful abuse fired at Asato after she objected to the harm caused by the ‘bikinification’ trend. Signalling his escalatory influence, that is when the deepfake video showing her being chloroformed was produced and thus replied to Musk’s retweet.

It remains to be seen whether the government will show any real backbone in holding tech giants like Musk to account. Even while criticising his “extreme personal views”, Peter Kyle still found time to describe him as a “successful innovator and commercialiser of innovation”. Last year, he even stated the government must “respect and engage with” Musk who he called an “unignorable force”.

That kind of mixed messaging – condemning on one hand while praising on the other – does little to suggest ministers are prepared to take on real power.

Once again, a powerful and controversial figure gets wrapped up in talk of being “complex”, rather than being judged on the real-world impact of his actions. If the government keeps talking out of both sides of its mouth, it’s hard to see how it will ever seriously rein in Big Tech.

Featured image via Getty/Joe Raedle

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

The post Henry Nowak: why we should rage against two-tier policing appeared first on spiked.

Source link

Green Party Leader Zack Polanski is under fire for calling for potential British-Israeli dual national war criminals to be investigated. The Jewish News platformed commentators who conflated criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism over Polanski’s signing of a Declassified UK letter calling for basic accountability.

Polanski, who is Jewish, signed the 26 May letter. Declassified and the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians are running a campaign to force police to investigate Brits who served in the Israeli military during the genocide. You can read the Canary’s report here.

The campaign letter reads:

We, the undersigned, are politicians, lawyers, campaigners, human rights defenders, journalists, and concerned members of the public who believe the public interest is best served by monitoring the entry of British-Israeli dual national citizens into the UK and investigating potential links to war crimes, in cases where they have served in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).

Over 2000 Brits have served in the genocide, yet UK police have refused to investigate. The letter makes two recommendations:

Firstly:

Implement a disclosure requirement regarding service in the Israeli military, subjecting travellers with Israeli travel documents or arriving from an origin of Tel Aviv airport to potential secondary screening at ports of entry under domestic war crimes inadmissibility rules and/or adjusted visa policies.

And secondly:

Conduct robust, impartial and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, in compliance with the obligation to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes.

Conflating accountability with antisemitism

Jewish Leadership Council Public Affairs Director Russell Langer told Jewish News:

At a time of rising antisemitism, it is particularly disturbing to see calls for the monitoring of dual British-Israeli citizens. Demonisation of Israelis is not a criticism of a foreign government but the targeting of a group of people for their nationality.

Adding:

Such hatred risks making British Jews, many of whom have close family and social connections to Israel, a target for hostility and violence.

A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies said:

This petition seems to be another attempt to demonise Israelis and promote an atmosphere of intimidation against British Jews.

It is an example of what the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Jonathan Hall KC has described as the ignoring of conventions against the promotion of collective hatred against a nationality in the case of Israelis.

The spokesperson added:

The call of those who have signed it, including Zack Polanski, to treat people as potential criminals just because of their passport is a unique and wholly unacceptable form of discrimination.

The conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism – and with a general critique of the settler-colonial state of Israel – has always been a scurrilous thing. Almost three years of genocide has diminished the power of this attack line. Previously indifferent publics now understand the colonialist nature of the Israeli project and the roles of the US and UK.

Polanski has his shortcomings – the Canary isn’t shy about pointing them out – but on this the Green leader is absolutely correct.

Featured image via Getty/Ryan Jenkinson

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Far-right AI war firm Palantir has won yet another UK contract. This time the genocide-linked company’s software will manage guns, explosives, and even poisons held by the British state. The news comes as the UK’s tech committee urged the government to pull the plug on Palantir’s takeover of vast areas of UK infrastructure.

Tech website The Register reported on 4 June:

Palantir has secured a £9 million ($12 million) government contract to provide software for managing firearms licensing across the UK.

And:

The US spy-tech biz will also handle Home Office licensing for explosives, explosive precursors, and poisons. The contract covers a replacement for the National Firearms Licensing Management System (NFLMS), which has been in use since the mid-2000s.

This is despite London Mayor Sadiq Khan banning a major Palantir contract with the Met Police.

Palantir becoming embedded in UK

The Register found a government procurement notice which shows Palantir will “help”:

43 Police Forces in England and Wales record how they grant, renew, and revoke firearms licenses.

The contract — set to last up to ten years, including possible extensions — could also support Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) if required.

The procurement process was run by the Police Digital Service:

which is responsible for “coordinating, developing, delivering, and managing digital services and solutions”, according to its website.

The UK military, police, NHS and, allegedly, the Telegraph newspaper have started to use Palantir technology. The firm is deeply involved in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and maintains a permanent desk in southern Israel. Trump’s paramilitary immigration operations, ICE, also use the firm’s gear.

The Canary reported on 2 June that UK officials are even using Palantir software to decide what Palantir technology to buy to fight future wars.

Manosphere

And as the Canary reported on 20 April, Palantir’s ‘manifesto’ is a collection of far-right tropes more suited to a far-right manosphere podcast than a multinational arms firm.

For example, Point 21 reads:

Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.

While Point 22 is a fascist-accented lament for Western white supremacist ‘culture’:

We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?

The march of these AI firms through the British state is deeply alarming. The company’s founders are tech-bro billionaires with a perverse and fascistic ‘civilisational’ worldview. They seek not only to enrich themselves, but to govern in a bid to save what they see as a ‘superior’ western, white supremacist civilisation. Divesting from their software is the very least that is required.

Featured image via Getty/Carl Court

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Fans attending the 2026 World Cup will not be allowed to bring reusable water bottles into stadiums. The latest restriction introduced by FIFA has sparked criticism and concerns about temperatures across the tournament’s hottest host cities. This year’s tournament features 48 teams for the first time. It will take place across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. As a result, several matches are expected to be played in high temperatures and humidity.

What has changed in stadium rules?

Under the new regulations, fans cannot bring reusable water bottles into venues. However, previously, spectators could carry transparent, empty plastic bottles up to one litre. The updated policy also bans cups, metal containers, and similar items.

FIFA says the move is part of a broader security framework. In a statement, the governing body explained that such objects could be used as projectiles, posing a danger to fans, players, and tournament staff. In a statement to Reuters, FIFA said it is committed to protecting:

the health and safety of all players, referees, fans, volunteers and staff.

FIFA also cited safety reasons, saying the ban is intended to reduce the risk of injury:

Outside bottles are already prohibited at several of these venues for safety considerations and FIFA is applying this ​consideration across its tournament stadiums.

Heat concerns at host cities

FIFA fans hit back

Fan groups have slammed FIFA’s policy, including England’s “Free Lions,” who called the water bottle ban a blatant money grab so close to kickoff.

The group said they had previously been assured reusable water bottles would be allowed, and questioned the sudden reversal.

What next? Suncream banned and fans forced to buy it in stadiums?

For all of the effort they are going to with ‘drinks breaks’ for the players, this is such a strange, late change.

In all of our discussions, free water availability in stadiums was a key one and we were assured… https://t.co/cXjwQwhRLO pic.twitter.com/0XhGsHHECS

— Free Lions (@WeAreFreeLions) June 4, 2026

Speaking to the Guardian, Ronan Evain, director of Football Supporters Europe, called FIFA’s water ban “a real health risk,” warning that harder access to hydration raises the chances of heatstroke and dehydration. He also slammed the governing body for putting profits ahead of fan safety, calling the decision “appalling” and saying it:

shows the priority seems to be, again, to generate revenues. How immoral it is to [profit from] water in this situation when people’s health is at risk.

Featured image via Dan Mullan / Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link