Mobile contracts were once considered essential. Regardless of whether your needs changed, you chose a provider, signed a long-term contract, and remained with them. However, such a paradigm is becoming less and less popular.

Mobile users in the UK today are much less inclined to stick to strict plans and are more knowledgeable and adaptable. Transparency, control, and value-driven services are now in greater demand.

This is where ASDA Mobile comes into play.

Why Traditional Contracts Are Losing Their Grip

Long-term agreements used to make sense. They provided steadiness and, occasionally, more affordable prices. However, such advantages began to seem less applicable as technology and human behavior changed.

Nowadays, consumers want the flexibility to upgrade, downgrade, or switch without facing any consequences. Instead of the other way around, they want plans that adjust to their consumption.

This change is directly addressed by ASDA Mobile’s model.

A Service Built Around Real Usage Patterns

ASDA Mobile’s emphasis on practicality is one reason it appeals to consumers. Plans are built around how users actually use their phones rather than ideal circumstances.

This entails providing simple pricing, adaptable data packages, and easy plan modification.

Although the difference is small, it greatly enhances the user experience.

The Role of Cost Efficiency in Today’s Market

Affordability is now a major factor for many households due to the UK’s rising cost of living. Mobile plans are now part of a broader budgeting approach rather than just about connectivity.

ASDA Mobile presents itself as an affordable choice without compromising necessary features.

Because of this balance, those who wish to cut costs without sacrificing quality will find it especially appealing.

Reliability Without Premium Pricing

There is a widespread misperception that cheaper providers are inherently of inferior quality. ASDA Mobile, however, uses well-established network infrastructure to refute this notion.

This guarantees continuous performance and dependable coverage for users throughout the United Kingdom.

This mix of price and dependability is exactly what many people are searching for.

The Importance of Simplicity in Telecom

Telecom services are frequently overly complicated. Plans have complicated pricing systems, hidden conditions, and several tiers.

ASDA Mobile adopts an alternative strategy.

It eliminates the friction that frequently deters users by streamlining its products. This simplicity not only facilitates plan selection but also lowers the possibility of unforeseen problems down the road.

Adapting to a Digital-First Lifestyle

Digital habits have a big impact on how people use mobile devices today. Users’ data consumption is influenced by social media, streaming, online purchasing, and remote work.

ASDA Mobile provides adaptable data solutions that can be changed as needed to meet these needs.

This flexibility guarantees that consumers are not battling with inadequate allowances or overpaying for unnecessary data.

A Practical Choice for Multiple User Segments

One of ASDA Mobile’s greatest advantages is its adaptability.

It provides flexibility and affordability for students. It offers families a simple way to manage several connections. Professionals can use it as a primary plan without long-term commitments or as a dependable backup alternative.

Its user-centric design is shown in its broad popularity.

Accessibility and Ease of Use

Accessibility is more than just cost. It also takes into account how simple it is to begin and carry out your plan.

In this regard, ASDA Mobile shines by providing simple account administration, easy top-ups, and uncomplicated onboarding.

Even people who are less tech-savvy can easily access the service thanks to its user-friendly design.

Why the Timing Is Right

Users in the UK telecom market are actively looking for alternatives at this stage. More flexible carriers now have a chance due to rising costs, shifting usage habits, and discontent with established contracts.

ASDA Mobile is well-positioned to benefit from this change.

Its emphasis on cost, flexibility, and simplicity is exactly what modern consumers want.

The Psychological Appeal of Control

There is a psychological component to consider in addition to the practical advantages. It gives you a sense of freedom to be in charge of your cell plan and to know you can change it whenever you want.

Conventional contracts frequently lack this feeling.

By allowing consumers to make choices based on their present needs rather than previous commitments, ASDA Mobile takes advantage of this.

A Sustainable Approach to Mobile Usage

Long-term usability is just as important to sustainability as the environment. Flexible plans cut down on waste, including wasteful spending and unused data.

ASDA Mobile encourages a more effective approach to mobile usage by letting users customize their plans.

Both the user and the market as a whole gain from this efficiency.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Mobile Plans

It is doubtful that the trend toward flexibility will change. Users will demand even greater control over their services as technology advances.

While providers that stick to antiquated models might struggle, those who adjust to this demand will prosper.

This future is already in line with ASDA Mobile.

Conclusion: A Service That Matches Modern Expectations

Mobile plan selection is evolving, and for good reason. These days, simplicity, affordability, and flexibility are necessary rather than optional.

All three are met by ASDA Mobile.

It provides a useful substitute for conventional contracts that blends in perfectly with contemporary lifestyles. It is a timely and wise option for UK customers who want to stay connected without needless hassles.

By Nathan Spears

Source link

Israel has assassinated a journalist in Lebanon, after threatening her and then hunting her down.

The genocidal terrorist state murdered Amal Khalil, a journalist with Al-Akhbar newspaper, in a double-tap attack in al-Tayri, Southern Lebanon, on Wednesday, April 22.

Khalil and Zeinab Faraj, a freelance photojournalist, were both reporting on the recent attacks on the village of Bint Jbeil. Faraj was also severely injured in the attack, but remains in a stable condition after undergoing emergency surgery, which highlights the ongoing danger faced by journalists covering Lebanon’s conflicts.

Double-tap attack

At 2:45pm on Wednesday, an Israeli drone targeted the car they were driving behind, killing the two men inside. Khalil and Faraj took shelter in a nearby house within Lebanon as events unfolded.

The car the journalists were driving behind was hit by an Israeli drone at 2:45 pm killing 2 men inside; Zeinab, Amal took shelter in nearby house; At 2:50pm Amal called her editors, family; President Aoun called on Red Cross, army to rescue them; 4:27pm Israel bombed house https://t.co/w8UNIqTedn

— Zeina Khodr (@ZeinakhodrAljaz) April 23, 2026

At 2:50pm, Khalil called her editors and family, and news of the attack quickly reached Lebanese President, Joseph Aoun, who put out a statement calling on the Red Cross to rescue them in coordination with the Lebanese Army and the United Nations.

The Lebanese President says the Israeli killing of journalist Amal Khalil is a ‘crime against humanity’ and urges the int community to take action. He describes the Israeli action as ‘aimed at concealing the truth of its aggressive acts against Lebanon’ https://t.co/yIXtzByqnA

— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) April 23, 2026

Then, at 4:27pm, the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) bombed the house where the two journalists were taking refuge. The mounting violence in Lebanon against media workers continues to shock observers.

To make matters worse, Israel then ignored requests for access to conduct a rescue operation. Eventually, the IOF granted the Red Cross limited access to the site, but the site remained under active fire within Lebanon’s border.

According to Drop Site News:

They were able to evacuate Faraj, who reportedly sustained critical head injuries, and to recover the bodies of two other civilians who were killed. But they were forced to withdraw before finding Khalil because of continued shelling and the direct firing on rescue crews and vehicles. The Red Cross vehicle that transported journalist Faraj to Tubnin Governmental Hospital was hit by Israeli gunfire, with bullet marks visible on the vehicle, according to the state-run National News Agency.

The Red Cross was eventually able to return to the area after which Khalil was pronounced dead.

So not only is Israel purposefully targeting journalists, but it is also targeting the rescue workers and vehicles attempting to save their lives. Such incidents should be condemned, especially given their impact on Lebanon.

Amal Khalil was not just a a friend and a colleague, she was a mentor to me and to other journalists. She was an inspiration. She also sought to keep us inspired to report the news in an accurate and truthful manner, far from the sensationalism and narcissism that dominates our… pic.twitter.com/S4APdOp0Do

— courtneybonneauimages (@cbonneauimages) April 23, 2026

Premeditation

In an interview before the attack, Khalil received “direct threats” to her phone from both Mossad and the Israelis, threatening to kill her. She said:

They were literally saying they would sever my head from my shoulders if I didn’t leave south Lebanon.”

One of the Israelis who threatened Khalil was Gideon Gal Ben Avraham. He is a retired military officer who continues to “help” Israeli intelligence, threatened Khalil. He also claims to be a media commentator – but by Israel’s own standards, that means terrorist. Clearly, such threats are not uncommon for journalists reporting from Lebanon, especially those challenging powerful interests.

Importantly, international humanitarian law protects journalists. Under the Geneva Convention [Article 79], journalists should be treated as civilians and protected as such. This means targeting them is illegal under international and Lebanon’s domestic law.

Obviously, Israel has no regard for international law. But the international community continues to turn away as Israel murders journalist after journalist in Lebanon and elsewhere.

The IOF has always had one goal: silencing voices that expose its war crimes. As Nour Mahmoud, from Al-Akhbar, wrote:

The Israeli occupation army deliberately works to silence any voice that exposes its actions. The crime did not begin with the missile that hit Amal Khalil’s car in the town of Al-Tiri, nor did it end with the shell that followed her to the house where she had taken refuge

In this context, the systematic targeting of journalists is no longer a mere incidental detail, but rather part of a broader strategy: to rid the field of its eyes and voices. Here, the journalist is not seen as a neutral civilian, but as a direct threat because they possess something that cannot be easily erased: evidence

Since October 2023, Israel has assassinated at least 15 journalists, including Khalil, in Lebanon. Additionally, in Gaza, the IOF has murdered over 260 Palestinian journalists. These figures make it the deadliest ever war for journalists – but we all know that this is not a war — it’s a genocide.

The systematic targeting of journalists is Israel’s attempt to erase the evidence, and the silence from the majority of the international journalism community is deafening. Meanwhile, the suffering of Lebanon’s people and journalists is ongoing.

Feature image via the Canary

By HG

Source link

In the cavernous theatre of the House of Commons on 20 April 2026, amid two and a half hours of choreographed indignation and procedural deflection, a single sentence cut through the fog:

Why didn’t the Prime Minister ask?

Diane Abbott’s question hung in the chamber for a moment and was then, with practised establishment efficiency, allowed to evaporate. The press and broadcasters moved on. By the evening bulletins, the discourse had reverted to its most comfortable ruts: was the Prime Minister a liar, or was he merely, as the Conservative leader suggested, “grossly incompetent”? The nation was invited, once again, to choose between flattering explanations of its own government.

A question unanswered

Abbott’s question does not belong to that debate. It does not accept either of its premises. It points, with the clarity only outsiders retain, at something both parties of the Westminster duopoly have an interest in not examining too closely: the possibility that the Prime Minister appointed, to the most important diplomatic post in the world, a man under active criminal investigation for having passed sensitive government data to a convicted to a convicted sex offender – and simply did not bother to ask whether his security clearance had gone through.

There is an answer to Abbott’s question, though it is not the one the Prime Minister offered. It was supplied the following day, in much plainer language, by the very civil servant Starmer has publicly undermined. Olly Robbins, the recently-dismissed permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, told a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that he would “absolutely not” have considered it appropriate to inform Starmer that the United Kingdom Security Vetting service had recommended Mandelson be denied developed vetting clearance. He had not considered it, he explained, because decisions of that kind “must remain confidential.” This sentence received no attention. 

What Robbins described – and one suspects he described it honestly, which is precisely why Number 10 briefed against him so briskly – was not a breakdown in communication. It was the system functioning exactly as designed. The British security-clearance architecture is constructed so that Prime Ministers are not told which of their appointed have failed security vetting.

The stated purpose is to insulate the clearance process from political interference, thereby preserving the impartiality of a system that ought, in theory, to stand above the ordinary churn of ministerial preference. The effect, however, is to create an institutional mechanism for the manufacture of prime-ministerial ignorance. In a governing culture that has refined the passive voice into a form of statecraft, ignorance has become the sovereign’s most reliable alibi. 

Unanimous silence

This is what makes Abbott’s question so incisive, and why it was received with unanimous silence by the media establishment: it rewrites the entire structure of the scandal. In doing so, it also withdraws from the Prime Minister the last plausible defence he has left to give.

If the question is ‘did Starmer know?’, then his account can at least be entertained within its own terms. ‘Nobody told me’ is, at a stretch, a statement capable of being true. Within the narrow framing that the broadcasters and mainstream press have consented to adopt, it is also at least a defence that can be dressed up and sent into battle. But if the question is ‘why did he not ask?’, there is no defence remaining to him at all. There is only a judgement, and a judgment of a particularly damning kind. 

A Prime Minister who appoints an ambassador already known, and known for years, to have been the intimate friend and longtime defender of a convicted serial child-rapist; who had been handed a report flagging his appointee’s “reputational risks” and “numerous conflicts of interest”; who had been warned that his nominee’s closeness to Jeffrey Epstein ran deeper and more incriminatingly than Mandelson had ever been willing to disclose — such a Prime Minister does not, in the ordinary course of things, simply forget to ask whether the developed vetting has come back clean.

He declines to ask, because the answer was never information he required in order to make the appointment. It was information he feared might prevent him from making it.

A deeper scandal

It fell to Gillian Keegan, of all people, to articulate on national television the moral conclusion that the Labour front bench has lacked either the honesty or the courage to reach. Starmer did not ask because, quite simply, he did not want to know. When a former Conservative education secretary is supplying the moral clarity absent from the governing party, the Prime Minister has a problem that no reshuffle can resolve.

The deeper scandal, however, lies not in the appointment itself, but in the factional machinery that produced it. Mandelson was not a rogue choice imposed upon a reluctant Prime Minister; he was the natural product of a governing project assembled, over several patient years, by Morgan McSweeney and the Labour Together operation — the same operation that installed Starmer in the leadership, purged the membership of its inconvenient dissenters, and reshaped the Parliamentary Labour Party in its own image.

An administration built by that faction was always going to appoint a Mandelson to Washington, because a Mandelson is precisely the kind of figure the faction exists to elevate: ideologically reliable, donor-friendly, and possessed of the right enemies. The failure to ask about the vetting was not a lapse of judgement within the system; it was the system producing exactly what it was designed to produce.

This is why the scandal cannot be contained by Starmer’s carefully staged contrition at the despatch box. The question he refused to ask in early 2025 is the same question that now hangs over every other appointment made under the same factional logic — the peerages, the advisers, the quiet sinecures distributed to men whose reputational baggage was known to everyone in Westminster long before the documents forced the issue into the open. The vetting architecture is merely the most convenient laundering mechanism. The factional architecture behind it is the real story.

The question itself will not go away. It cannot be withdrawn by a reshuffle, absorbed by a review, or buried by a press operation of the customary kind. It hangs, now, over everything this Prime Minister says and, more tellingly, over everything he does not.

Why didn’t the Prime Minister ask? Because he already knew the answer.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rares Cocilnau

Source link

Journalist Sangita Myska and former First Minister of Scotland Humza Yousaf were among those enraged by the rape and Islamophobic abuse of a Sikh woman, whom her white supremacist attacker, John Ashby, wrongly assumed to be Muslim, as well as the lack of mainstream accountability for him.

John Ashby: where’s the coverage?

Yousaf said the attack in Walsall, which took place last year, did not happen in a vacuum, arguing that this is what happens when hate is mainstreamed and when “cowards in suits pretend their words have no consequences.”

“Bloody Muslim bitch.”

That is what John Ashby shouted at his victim as he raped her

And while doing it screamed anti-Muslim abuse

Advertisement

This did not happen in a vacuumthe

This is what happens when hate is mainstreamed

When cowards in suits pretend their words have no consequences pic.twitter.com/C0LAcEGWU0

— Humza Yousaf (@HumzaYousaf) April 21, 2026

Advertisement

Myska decried the lack of coverage of the crime on front pages and the ” hateful rhetoric pumped out online and normalised by hard right politicians.”

This is John Ashby, the racist monster who raped a Sikh woman because he believed her to be Muslim. This image should be on the front page of every newspaper and online platform. His actions will have been fuelled by the hateful rhetoric pumped out online and normalised by hard… pic.twitter.com/e4yWBSKLEp

— Sangita Myska (@SangitaMyska) April 21, 2026

Narinder Kaur, broadcaster & social commentator, also asked why there was “no mainstream TV channel covering” the crime and trial.

I’m wondering why no mainstream TV channel are covering this? Or where the protests are ?
A Sikh woman was followed home and raped in a racially motivated attack because the predator thought she was Muslim.

The problem is men not religion. pic.twitter.com/t8PBXKbBL1

Advertisement

— Narinder Kaur (@narindertweets) April 21, 2026

In October 2025, in Walsall, John Ashby followed a Sikh woman home after she got off a bus. Armed with a two‑foot stick he picked up from the ground, he entered her property without her knowledge.

The Mirror reported that Ashby shouted “Bloody Muslim bitch” at his victim during the rape. The woman told him she was Sikh, but he did not care.

The BBC reported that Ashby ordered his victim to call him “the master.” After raping her, he made her lie on the bed and said he was there “to have fun,” while describing his genitals as “white British.”

He is going to be sentenced on Friday, April 24.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

Fan group London Solidarity Football did an action over the weekend of 18-19 April. The group placed anti-Reform posters in bus stops outside football grounds around London. These included Millwall, Charlton, Crystal Palace, Arsenal, Leyton Orient and West Ham.

The posters carry an image of Reform’s grifter-in-chief Nigel Farage signing one of his ridiculous ‘football shirts’. He’s wearing a MAGA-style red cap that says: “Make my chums rich again”. The poster carries the text:

SCRAPPING WORKERS RIGHTS

SELLING OFF PUBLIC SERVICES

MAKING FAMILIES POORER

BLAMING IT ON IMMIGRANTS

All with a tick. Followed by:

DECLARING HIS INCOME

With a cross after it.

Then in large letters above the image of Farage, it says:

THIS TRANSFER WINDOW, DONT SIGN THIS FRAUD

The message ahead of the local elections on 7 May couldn’t be clearer. Reform has nothing to offer to football fans. Or anyone else. Except maybe the super-wealthy.

London Solidarity Football issued a statement:

We are a group of football fans from different clubs united in solidarity. We reject right wing influence in society and specifically in football.

Nigel Farage has made some pathetic attempts at using football to sanitise his image and endear himself to working class people. He sells ‘Reform FC’ shirts and recently went on a stadium tour at Ipswich Town.

This is the same man who said ‘politics has no place in football’ when players took the knee in support of Black Lives Matter. Nigel is no football fan and is more regularly seen at fox hunts.

We took this action ahead of the local elections on May 7. We encourage all football fans to reject the anti-immigration politics of the 1% and stand together with the fans and players from different races, religions and cultures that make their clubs what they are.

Advertisement

London Solidarity Football was referencing Farage’s visit to Ipswich Town’s Portman Road ground. That turned into a PR nightmare for everyone involved with a mess of contradictory claims. Local rivals Norwich City were quick to suggest the Reform bandwagon wouldn’t be welcome at their house:

Book a stadium tour of Carrow Road – new dates now available.

Terms and conditions will most definitely apply

— Norwich City FC (@NorwichCityFC) March 24, 2026

And when Farage hinted at attending a Sunderland match, fans were quick to let him know what they thought. It seems that many footy fans want nothing to do with Reform’s politics of division, fear and hate. They’d much prefer it if Farage actually did what he once said and kept politics out of football.

Featured image via London Solidarity Football

By The Canary

Source link

Donald Trump’s grip on reality seems to be increasingly weak. The latest example of this is him celebrating the release of eight prisoners. And the reason it’s worrying is because there’s good reason to suspect that most of these women were AI generated images:

Trump seems to be inventing fake concessions given to him by the Iranians to make it appear that he is building leverage and goodwill for the negotiations that he is still trying to engineer.

Whatever the outcome this is very low IQ and mentally-ill behavior which should be… pic.twitter.com/FZrQn3mr7C

— Murtaza Hussain (@MazMHussain) April 22, 2026

Advertisement

Trump: unreality

The eight Iranian women were brought to Trump’s attention by the notorious propagandist Eyal Yakoby, who said:

BREAKING: The Islamic Republic is preparing to hang eight women.

Not a word from the international community or so-called human rights organizations.

The following is the image he posted:

Modern AI technology can produce images which are indistinguishable from real photos. What gives the game away here is that every woman bar one has an identical sun halo effect around their heads, suggesting they were generated using the same prompt.

Oh, and there’s something very interesting about the woman without the sun halo. The woman in question is Bita Hemmati – the one woman we know is real. As the Times reported:

Trump shared a post on Truth Social suggesting that the eight Iranian women, including two teenagers, would be executed by hanging — although human rights groups said only one of them, Bita Hemmati, had been confirmed as having been sentenced to death.

Hemmati took part in the anti-regime protests in January when tens of thousands of Iranians were believed to have been killed. She is set to be executed with her husband Mohammadreza Majidi-Asl, 34, and two neighbours, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA).

Reporting on 16 April, Sky News described Hemmati as the “first” female protester that Iran is set to execute over the protests. There isn’t reporting anywhere confirming that the other seven women are set to be executed, nor that they exist.

We don’t think Iran should be executing anyone (nor should the United States). The problem here is that Trump seems to be conducting his war efforts based on the unconfirmed posts of the most untrustworthy people on the internet. And his press team are celebrating his dubious claims as if they’re real:

Leavitt: "Only President Trump could save the lives of these eight beautiful Iranian women" pic.twitter.com/VQaW3QyUNR

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 22, 2026

If Iran has opted not to execute Hemmati, that’s good, but at this point Trump’s constant false claims mean we can’t even trust that.

Post-truth

There’s more to be concerned about too. As Skwawkbox wrote for the Canary on 22 April:

An Israel-based AI firm, Generative AI for Good, claims to be using deepfake technologies for positive ends. ‘Positive’ appears to mean creating deepfake videos to help the illegal US-Israel war on Iran.

Additionally:

Generative AI for Good claims that it uses AI to “help survivors testify safely — in their real voice, without revealing their identity”. But Israel and its mouthpieces have been shown to have used false allegations of rapes and other atrocities on 7 October 2023 to justify its genocide in Gaza.

By Willem Moore

Source link

In the latest unhinged rambling, Trump took to Truth Social with a post filled with racist attacks against non-European immigrants, calling China and India ‘hellholes’ and claiming white Americans are being pushed out of tech jobs by Indian and Chinese workers.

The post was part of a transcript of an episode from Savage Nation by the MAGA influencer Michael Savage. According to his bio, he wants to “save Western Civilization!”

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP MUST BE BANNED

WATCH TONIGHT ON @NEWSMAX pic.twitter.com/NkXKh1WbdL

— Michael Savage (@ASavageNation) April 5, 2026

Advertisement

The post demands an end to birthright citizenship – the 14th Amendment right that grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil.

It claims this right is being exploited by Chinese and Indian immigrants who come here to “drop a baby” and then bring in their entire families.

The post claims that non-European immigrants no longer assimilate, unlike the Irish, Italians, and Poles who came before.

Trump’s wrath at the ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship order in Trump v. Barbara. The order seeks to deny citizenship to children born to non-citizen parents, including those on visas.

The post calls the ACLU:

the most dangerous criminal organization in the history of America.

A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by late June or early July, according to CBS News.

Glorifying Native American Genocide

The post also glorifies Andrew Jackson – the president who defied the Supreme Court and paved the way for the Trail of Tears:

I think we need a Jackson as president, and I don’t mean Ketanji Jackson. We need someone to stand up to these lawyers. They’ve destroyed our nation.

According to the US National Park Service, the Supreme Court ruled in 1832 that Georgia had no authority over Cherokee lands. The then US president, Andrew Jackson, reportedly said:

John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.

Jackson refused to enforce the ruling, leading to the Trail of Tears (1838-1839) and an estimated 4,000 Cherokee deaths.

Seemingly endorsing Jackson, the post says:

… the Supreme Court ruled about the Cherokee removal, he disagreed with what the Supreme Court said. And he said, now that the court has decided, let them enforce, meaning, he said, go screw yourselves. I hold all the power with the military.

Iran’s diplomacy

While Trump was trashing the Global South, the Iranian embassy in Hyderabad spoke in defence of the countries, reminding Trump that they are the cradles of civilisation:

China and India are the cradles of Civilization. In fact, the #hellhole is where its war-criminal president threatened to decimate the civilization in Iran.

— Iran In Hyderabad (@IraninHyderabad) April 23, 2026

Advertisement

The post also casually insulted Iran, saying the “ACLU has done more damage to America than the Mullahs in Iran have done to this nation.”

The post had everything: misogyny toward ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang; glorification of Andrew Jackson’s genocidal policies; racism against Chinese and Indian immigrants; and xenophobic attacks on birthright citizenship.

A good reminder that Western supremacy means being willing to commit genocide, defy courts, and call ancient civilizations ‘hellholes’ … all while claiming to ‘save Western Civilization.’

By The Canary

Source link

Sixteen of the largest UK companies are considering over an average 200% rise in CEO pay, awarded through annual bonuses. Meanwhile, real terms worker pay is largely lower than in 2008.

Sixteen of the largest companies in the UK are considering an average 200% increase in pay for their chief executive officers, which would come through bonuses awarded annually. At the same time, the real terms wages of workers remain lower than they were in 2008.

“Discontent”

The analysis, by Deloitte, also found that CEOs of the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) received nearly £5.9 million in average pay in 2025. This is a rise of 18% from £5 million in 2024. The vast majority of people couldn’t fathom getting £900,000 in pay, let alone receiving that as one year’s increase. Indeed, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said it was “frankly obscene”. The role of CEO has become synonymous with exceptionally high salaries in the UK.

He continued:

[CEO pay] reinforces the sense that our system is rigged in favour of those at the top. We need an economy that works for working people – not just City high‑fliers.

Interim director of the High Pay Centre Andrew Speke said:

In the context of a worsening cost of living crisis, these new figures are likely to increase existing discontent over pay inequality and excessive executive pay. YouGov polling last week suggested that 65% of respondents support the Green Party’s policy of a 10:1 pay ratio between executive pay and that of the lowest-paid worker. This underlines the scale of public concern and suggests it would be a sensible move for government to take this issue more seriously and consider stronger action on corporate excess.

The average £5.9 million in top executive pay is up from previous estimates of £5.5 million. The pay increase comes despite 20 of the FTSE 100 companies reducing their environmental and social commitments when assessing pay rises for bosses. At the centre of these changes is the increasing power wielded by CEOs.

Further, the share value of the top 100 UK companies has leapt by 20% in a year. That’s despite UK growth stagnating at 1.3% in 2025.

This shows a corporate oligarchy is dominating the resources and expertise available to the country. Over the past decade, only 125 companies have rotated within the FTSE 100, while the influence held by each CEO has continued to grow.

Featured image via the Unsplash/Canary

By James Wright

Source link

As Stormont’s strained finances fail to hold together essential services, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) have hailed £50 million being thrown away on the machinery of mass death.

Speaking in response to the launch of Westminster’s Northern Ireland Defence Growth Deal, party leader Gavin Robinson said:

I welcome the Government’s commitment to invest £50 million in Northern Ireland’s Defence Growth Deal. This is a significant opportunity to strengthen a sector that already supports around 9,000 jobs across Northern Ireland.

Of course, military spending is an incredibly ineffective way to create jobs, compared to investment in education or health care. A Brown University study found that, in the United States:

…military spending (including both federal defense spending and various private military industries) produces an average of five jobs per $1 million in spending, including both direct jobs and jobs in the supply chain.

By contrast, 13 jobs are created for every $1 million in education spending – nearly three times as much employment. Healthcare spending creates 84% more jobs than military spending, while infrastructure and clean energy create from 24% to 64% more.

Advertisement

However, as Clara Mattei recently pointed out, military spending is the most effective way to boost an economy without giving anything that benefits the working class.

If there’s a good public health care system, you’re less worried about losing your job, as you’ll always get treated if you’re ill. That gives you more power relative to your boss. A political class bought off by capital – i.e. employers – don’t want you to have that power. Military spending can grow the economy at least a bit, without this ‘flaw’.

War spending linked to destruction of climate and basic rights

Brown University has conducted a wealth of additional research into the costs of ploughing money into what our own Joe Glenton refers to as ‘Big Death‘. Among their findings were that:

War contributes significantly to climate change: The U.S. Defense Department is one of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters.

Also:

[Post-11 September 2001] wars have been accompanied by erosions in civil liberties and human rights at home and abroad.

By sheer happenstance, Britain’s ramping up of military spending has also coincided with its destruction of basic rights.

Robinson continued to celebrate the deal that Labour minister Luke Pollard said is an “incredible opportunity” for the north of Ireland:

This funding should be a foundation for further growth, keeping Northern Ireland competitive and firmly positioned within the UK’s defence and security industry.

Of course for a unionist, this is another boon of British defence spending in the Six Counties – it ties the region closer to Westminster. London is going to be less keen on a united Ireland if it’s going to lose a lot of defence tech in the process. On the other hand, the presence of war factories also makes the north of Ireland a target for violent retaliation in the event that Britain faces an actual threat, instead of the ones the press hallucinates.

Sinn Féin speak up but must do more to shut down arms racket

Sinn Féin voiced their opposition to the expansion of the murder machine, and refused to send a representative to the launch event. Party leader and Stormont first minister Michell O’Neill described it as “weapons of war over people”. She went on:

I would much prefer, if I had £50 million, to be spending it in other areas that are really, really crying out for support right now, whether that be people through the cost-of-living crisis or our health service or education or child care.

However, Sinn Féin has a far from perfect record on the arms industry, and has often had to be dragged by activists to a civilised position on the matter. They backed the presence of a Raytheon factory in Derry which was ultimately shut down by local direct action campaigners. Similarly, they were ambivalent about the north of Ireland being used as a base for genocidal F-35 warplanes until local activists brought the matter into the spotlight.

The Northern Ireland Defence Growth Deal forms part of Britain’s Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS), in which they will place defence hubs all over Britain. This is a tried and tested method of embedding the war machine for years to come. You put a factory in as many constituencies as possible to ensure there will be plenty of MPs voicing opposition to job losses should a government ever attempt to roll it all back.

Behind the jargon: the truth on funding Big Death

The official documents of the DIS are overloaded with incomprehensible promotional jargon. Fortunately the Canary has joined the AI race by investing literally pennies in reprogramming an old Raspberry Pi held together with masking tape, which we’ve used to translate this shite for your enlightenment. Apparently the DIS will be:

• Making defence an engine for growth

Translation – We’ve chosen the least effective way to grow the economy because it won’t give you proles anything useful

• Backing UK-based businesses

Translation – We’re doing a big corporate handout

• Positioning the UK at the leading edge of defence innovation

Translation – We’re going to come up with even more effective ways of helping ‘Israel’ kill kids

• Developing a resilient UK industrial base.

Translation – We’re going to build lots of factories, but not for anything useful

• Transforming procurement and acquisition systems.

Translation – We’ll make buying stuff even more corrupt than it already is

• Forging new and enduring partnerships.

Translation – If you’re a tyrant and/or genocidaire we haven’t sold to before, please give us a call

Long story short – this is a racket of grift and mass death. The focus on war keeps the public distracted by illusory foreign threats, and avoids spending on things that actually benefit most people.

The sound of more, better paying jobs sounds nice, right? Then let’s have extra nurses and teachers on higher salaries. Jobs that improve life, rather than end it.

Featured image via the Canary

By Robert Freeman

Source link

Students at the University of York, led by the York Student Action Network staged a loud but peaceful demonstration against the ratification of the Restore Britain Society. Whilst the protest remained non-violent, the atmosphere remained tense due to the annoyingly aggressive tactics of said society. The society, whose parent party is led by dickhead-in-chief Rupert Lowe, calls for mass deportations. Protesters stood in human chains to shield their comrades from the society’s irritating members, who spent all afternoon filming students and mocking them. Looks like misogyny is alive and well in the accolades of Lowe.

Dignity vs dickheads at York

The protesters were absolutely spot on. About 60 of them surrounded the student union building, a beautifully diverse crowd whose energy exploded, making the five guys in suits look like relics from a miserable past. This Restore lot stood there with sneers on their slapped-arse faces. Meanwhile, the protesters were full of life, passion, solidarity and a do-not-fuck-with-us attitude. It was a stunning sight to see a group that actually likes the true future of this country. They stood tall against a bunch of suited dickheads who want to drag us back to some shitty dark age that these guys seem to crave.

What was the most impressive was the sheer discipline of these people. As the university staff watched on, some laughing, these Restore lads were using the same provocative tactics of far-right auditors. One of them even looked a like a Poundshop knock-off of Young Bob. But despite these few dickheads trying to repeatedly bum-rush the demo, a wall of masked women stood vigil and stopped them. Funny though, how these far-right types always like to bully women, and that seems to stretch across all age-ranges.

Mockery and misogyny dressed in shit suits

The Restore Britain Society showed up in pinstripes and aviators, like weird incel caricatures. I think some part of them wanted to portrait an air of being academically elite, but their behaviour told a different story. Looming and jeering over a line of  women who stood as a human shield isn’t a good luck guys. It doesn’t make you look brave or edgy, it makes you look pathetic. One member was caught on camera sneering that the protesters “can only afford one megaphone”. Guys, you didn’t even turn up with one, so sit down. This classist bullshit from a tiny minority of the student body that think a bank balance determines your right to be heard is wild.

This lot aren’t auditors, but they love the tactics. They stood with phones held high, trying to film the faces of the women protecting the crowd. Hoping for that viral ‘gotcha’ reaction from protesters, when all they did was make themselves look ridiculous. They want to play the victim card, holler about free speech. Restore claim they face “harassment, bullying and isolation” to the Student Union, but the reality is the opposite. They are the ones creating the hostile environment, using their physical presence to intimidate women and trans people who refuse to back down. And the university staff did fuck all about it. The security were there for no reason at all it seems.

Staff complacency at York is a stab in the back

While students were left to protect one another, the behaviour of some of the university staff was pathetic. They were there, there was a presence, but to say they were useless is an understatement. Several of them were even seen laughing with members of the Restore Society. How the hell is it okay for university staff to be seen having a giggle with a group that advocates for mass deportations of Black and Brown people? This isn’t a lapse in judgement, it’s a total betrayal of the university’s duty of care.

The party that these students represent isn’t just right-wing. It’s a hard line offshoot of Reform UK that wants 200,000 removals on day one. When staff are seen joking with these dickheads, it sends a message to the international members of the university to eff off, basically. That their safety is nothing but a joke. And they make up 28% of the York University student body.

When this Restore rabble are advocating for the ban of Halal and Kosher foods to “restore Christian values” what does that say to Jewish and Muslim students? That they’re not welcome. And to see staff laughing with them is a total betrayal. Almost as bad as them allowing these goons to intimidate women and bum-rush the crowd. Come on guys, get a grip.

Will the SU draw the line?

Kaitlyn Beattie-Zarb, the York SU activities officer now has a choice to make. Having previously pledged to “call out any attempt to undermine dignity, respect and safety,” this seems like it will be an easy choice for her, surely? When you have a group calling for mass deportations, banning of literal food and who go around intimidating others, it seems to me like this will be an easy decision.

And ratifying this group would be an admission that the SU cares more about the ‘rights’ of bullies than the safety of students. And trust me when I say, if this society is upheld, the protesters will continue to organise against them. Freedom of speech will never be freedom from consequence, and those masked up students absolutely meant business.

The women who held the line yesterday showed more integrity than the university staff who played nice with radicals. These groups, whether they come under the banner of Reform, Restore or Britain First, all use the same shitty playbook of intimidation and misogyny. It’s time for the University of York to stop laughing along and start keeping it’s students safe. And if the Restore Society’s freedom of speech involves Instagram posts like this, the right choice becomes ever more clear.

If the SU validates this intimidation as ‘free speech,’ what’s to stop this Restore Society targeting students in their classrooms next? And the weird appearance of swastikas all over the University also needs investigating. Especially when the culprit hasn’t exactly covered their tracks.

So, York University… what will it be?

Image via AntifaBot

By Antifabot

Source link