Full time GMB branch secretaries, working for the UK’s third largest trade union, will be on strike on 29 May and 5 June. Unite the Union, which represents GMB staff, has called the action.

The strikers accuse GMB of hypocrisy, as the union campaigns against exploitative two-tier workforces by companies like Uber and Deliveroo, but GMB itself refuses to offer employment rights for part of its own, full-time workforce. Equivalent roles in Unison and Unite receive employment status.

GMB denies employment status to full time branch secretaries, even though they work at a very high level, control budgets and manage other people. In particular, GMB branch secretaries are excluded from GMB’s gold-plated final salary pension scheme. Instead they’re in the government’s NEST pension scheme, which is the statutory bare minimum.

GMB full time branch secretaries also lack job security, as GMB insists that the regional office can close their branch, and throw them out of office at any time.

Alex Mitchell, spokesperson for the strikers said:

These full-time GMB branch secretaries tell me that their employer takes them for fools, denying them the respect that they are due as experienced and highly expert trade union officials.

It is outrageous that GMB locks them out of the final salary pension scheme, even though these individuals work full time for GMB, and have done for many years.

Unite members working as full-time branch secretaries for GMB have been trying to negotiate a settlement to this dispute for over a year behind closed doors, but are being met with a stone wall. They therefore feel that they have no alternative other than to take industrial action themselves.

GMB must stop this disgraceful practice of a two tier workforce, and to acknowledge full time branch secretaries as employees, with secure status, a fair wage, and a decent pension.

Advertisement

GMB branch secretaries – a two tier workforce

Several GMB branch secretaries have very large branches of several thousand members, and work full time for the union. They have no other employment. The income of these branch secretaries depends upon the size of the branch, and this is negotiated between the branch secretaries and GMB. Secretaries are elected by the members of their branches.

These full time branch secretaries work at a very high level. For example:

• Advising and representing members about their workplace issues.
• Negotiating with employers.
• Leading industrial action.
• Leading campaigns for trade union recognition.
• Mentoring and training shop stewards.
• Talking to the press.
• Representing GMB as witnesses in litigation.

They work on a peer to peer basis with regional organisers, who are employed by the GMB region. The work of both GMB full time branch secretaries and GMB regional organisers involves high-level representation, negotiation and strategic thinking.

The full time branch secretaries also manage a budget, and supervise and manage other branch officers and shop stewards. Because these full-time branch secretaries are very experienced, they often mentor and support new, less experienced, regional organisers.

Despite the key role these branch secretaries play, GMB treats them with disrespect and denies them security of employment:

• The full time branch secretaries are denied employment status.
• Because they are not acknowledged to be employees, they are vulnerable if a GMB staff member makes a complaint about them. Their livelihood can be threatened.
• GMB regional secretaries claim to have the power to close down branches at any time, without any process, and therefore deny branch secretaries their livelihood.
• GMB branch secretaries often feel that the organisation regards them as disposable, because they are not acknowledged as employees, and GMB does not consider that it has any welfare responsibility towards them.
• GMB branch secretaries are excluded from GMB’s gold-plated final salary 1961 pension scheme. Instead they are put in the government’s NEST pension scheme, which is the statutory minimum that GMB can get away with.
• The GMB 1961 Pension scheme extends final salary benefits not only to staff, but also to some individuals who are not staff, but full time branch secretaries are excluded.
• They earn around half as much as GMB regional organisers. Full time branch secretaries earn up to about £30k to £32k per year on average, compared to around £50k to £56k range for regional organisers (excluding London weighting).
• They are unable to bring grievances if they are mistreated.
• Disabled branch secretaries have been denied occupational health referrals, and denied reasonable adjustments.

History

In 2006, two GMB branch secretaries, Hughes and Beaumont, won a case at the employment appeal tribunal that they were in fact employees. The facts are almost exactly the same today for current full-time branch secretaries.

As recently as about five years ago, a full time branch secretary in GMB Southern Region did have the status of an employee, before his retirement. His situation was almost exactly the same as current GMB full-time branch secretaries.

In GMB’s rule book, Rule 18(b) includes the category of “employees without a contract of employment”, which has in the past been used for these full time, elected branch secretaries.

Previously, GMB full time branch secretaries were enrolled in the final salary “stakeholder pension” that was broadly equivalent to the staff 1961 pension scheme. GMB closed this down, denying current branch secretaries a decent pension.

Featured image via Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

Reform UK’s candidate for the Makerfield by-election’s unearthed social media posts have stunned the general public over the last week.

The right-wing party announced last Tuesday that Robert Kenyon, a supposed “plucky plumber” and Wigan councillor, was going to be taking on Labour’s Andy Burnham in the race to win next month’s crunch contest.

Reform and Labour are locked in a two-horse race for the seat with Kenyon hoping to win over the support of the pro-Brexit constituency.

However, Burnham’s reputation as Greater Manchester mayor has given him an early lead according to polling – and he is hoping to oust Keir Starmer as prime minister if he wins the by-election.

Advertisement

With all eyes on the contest, Kenyon’s historic online presence has been dredged up – revealing some deeply problematic views.

Even so, Reform has stood by its candidate, even trying to market his outspoken comments as a positive.

Here’s what has been uncovered so far:

1. Attacks On Women

Advertisement

An account uncovered by The Independent and linked to Kenyon wrote women can’t “ref, drive or give directions” on an online rugby fan forum in the 2010s.

He said women presenting rugby games on TV “aren’t up to the job and only there to tick a box”, adding: “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.”

He also objectified European women’s bodies, saying English women “don’t care” and “just walk around with their fat bellies and odd shapes pushing a pram at 16 in their PJ’s”.

A spokesperson said: “These comments, which are little more than locker room banter, were made more than a decade ago – well before Rob was in politics.”

Advertisement

Reform’s spokesperson said: “We simply don’t care about establishment hit jobs. We fully back Rob and are confident he will be an excellent MP for Makerfield.”

2. Anti-Abortions Comments

The i paper unearthed 2019 comments sent on a rugby league forum which claimed women who have abortions get them for “vanity purposes” and so they can “shag anyone they want”.

Hope Not Hate campaigners also found that Kenyon also called abortion a “cowardly act of murdering a defenceless baby”in a series of now-deleted tweets from one account.

Advertisement

He also suggested women falsely claim to have been raped to terminate a pregnancy.

A spokesperson said: “Cllr Kenyon is perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions on abortion. In this country, this issue has always been a matter of conscience, regardless of which party a politician represents.”

3. Attacks On The LGBTQ+ Community

The Mirror reports Kenyon described gay people as “poofs” on a 2009 forum, and in 2010, described them as “mincing about” on TV.

Advertisement

In one post, he wrote: “You can’t call her ‘The Queen’ anymore because it offends the poofs.”

The next year, he wrote: “People who want to make a stand for homosexuals need not combat the throwaway comments of a sportsman on twitter but need to do something about the way homosexuals are perceived in the mainstream media, for instance having Julian Clarey [sic], Graham Norton, 4 poofs and a piano and Paul O’Grady mincing about on TV does a lot more damage to the reputation of homosexuals and causes greater insult in my opinion.”

In 2020, he wrote: “If LGBT just want acceptance then stop making a big song and dance about it, attention seeking and taking over other events because that’s turning people against you”.

He also called Labour the “party for trannys”, according to the Observer.

Advertisement

A spokesperson said: “Many of these comments were made nearly 20 years ago – well before Rob was in politics. We simply don’t care about establishment hit jobs. We fully back Rob and are confident he will be an excellent MP for Makerfield.”

4. Anti-Covid Vaccines Comments

Kenyon cast doubt on the Covid vaccine on X while using an account which has since been deleted.

Archived webpages uncovered by the Guardian revealed Kenyon said: “It’s not making people sicker, I’ve no booster and had covid last week asymptomatic.”

When pressed on why his opinion was based on his own anecdotal experience, he said: “At the same time I had it, four other people on the course I was on caught it all the same as me, no symptoms.”

Advertisement

He claimed his 70-something mother-in-law with chronic ung disease also experienced it as a “cold”.

Kenyon advised someone else who was ill with Covid: “Wait longer, take vitamins, stop having boosters.”

He also replied to a Sky News post about England’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty urging Brits to get booster jabs, saying Whitty can “fuck right off”.

He also claimed worries about a new variant in January 2022 were designed to “scare parents into getting their kids jabbed”. He wrote: “I smell a rat.”

Advertisement

“Robert had all his Covid jabs during the pandemic and his children are fully up to date on every vaccination,” a party representative said.

“These comments were made long before Rob was in politics. He isn’t a polished, professional politician and doesn’t speak like one. That’s precisely why he’ll be a straight-talking, effective voice for normal working people in Makerfield.”

5. Questions Over Brexit

The Times reported that Kenyon may not have voted for Brexit, even though that is a core policy of Reform UK.

Advertisement

In a social media post dating from March 28, 2019, he claimed he was not the typical right-winger.

“So anyone who thinks I love Trump, voted Brexit, read the Daily Mail, live in the 1950s, a Tory and 103 is wrong. I’m none of the above,” he said.

In another post, including a discussion called ‘Brexit Anyone?’, he wrote: “I woke up the day after Brexit shitting myself to what was voted for”, though he later said the EU’s treatment of Britain made him “glad we voted out”.

Kenyon also appeared to praise the principle of European free movement – one of Reform’s greatest qualms with the bloc – writing: ” “Free movement of people is great when they are natives of the EU countries and not people from outside Europe seeking a Greek passport that will allow them into any country in the EU.”

Advertisement

A representative said Kenyon “voted Leave in 2016 and is a proud Brexiteer, unlike Andy Burnham who will drag the UK back into the EU by any means possible”.

6. Carol Vorderman Remarks

Hope Not Hate also revealed that in 2021 Kenyon interacted with a social media message sent to the Countdown host, which read: “Happy birthday Carol, my God I would love to smell and lick your arsehole.”

Kenyon replied, “he’s only saying what we’re all thinking,” along with a thumbs up and a laughing emoji.

Advertisement

Vorderman has called Kenyon a misogynist, and told the Daily Mirror that she wanted “apology from Rob Kenyon, to me, and to all the other people he’s abused online.”

Danny Kruger defended Kenyon’s comments on Vorderman on Monday, telling BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: “The great challenge for social media for private people is that they use it as if they are chatting to their friends in the pub.

“It was a clearly inappropriate thing to say. I’m not going to judge people for what was intended as private conversations. Clearly that is not the kind of comment you would want an elected politician to say.”

7. Interacting With The Far-Right

Advertisement

Campaign organisation Searchlight said Kenyon was friends with fascist campaigner Gary Raikes on a now deleted Facebook page.

Reform has not disputed this claim. Party leader Nigel Farage said: “When he [Kenyon] campaigned here at the general election, hundreds of people joined as friends, and one of them turned out to be unsavoury.

“I am utterly confident that in Rob, we’ve got somebody who’s done his bit for his country, done his bit for himself, does his bit for the community.”

8. Weighing In On Ukraine And Russia

Advertisement

Kenyon claimed Russia was “within its rights” to invade the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea back in 2014, according to The Telegraph.

In an online forum, he agreed with a post which called the annexation “democracy in action”, writing: “Russia are well within their rights to do what they have done as we did with the Falklands.”

“At no point did Rob explicitly support or endorse Russia’s actions in Crimea,” a spokesperson said. “He is fully opposed to Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine. We fully back Cllr Kenyon. He is an excellent local candidate, who we are confident will be a superb MP for Makerfield.”

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Advertisement

Source link

Euphoria star Chloe Cherry has shared her take on working with its creator Sam Levinson.

Chloe is best known for portraying Faye Valentine in seasons two and three of the award-winning US drama, the latest finale of which is due to premiere in the UK next week.

During a new interview with Glamour magazine, the Roommates star was asked if she’d be up for coming back to Euphoria if a fourth season were to be made, and confirmed that she would.

“I love working for Sam Levinson so much,” she enthused, acknowledging that while “a lot of people don’t”, she likes him “a lot”.

Advertisement

Asked about why people might have issues with him, Chloe suggested: “I think it’s because he is so specific about how everything needs to be. And there’s some people that I guess just don’t like how he’s so specific with how he imagines everything in the show.”

She added that while she enjoys how Sam is prone to the way he can “randomly changing his mind” on set and be “so sure of everything that the characters wear and say”, other actors could “find that to be too much”.

In 2022, unconfirmed reports of a clash between cast member Barbie Ferreira and the show’s boss emerged in the press.

After Barbie announced her exit from Euphoria in the lead-up to season three, she insisted that her departure was a mutual decision.

More recently, The Hollywood Reporter published a piece alleging that the friendship between the show’s lead actor Zendaya and its creator had “cooled”, leading to supposed “resentment” between them.

Advertisement

Neither party has addressed this speculation publicly, and declined to comment when contacted by The Hollywood Reporter.

Elsewhere in her Glamour interview, Chloe defended the third season’s portrayal of women, which has become a contentious issue over the last few weeks.

She insisted: “I think Sam is using these young women as a vessel to show how society currently sees young women.

“I don’t believe that he’s trying to say that it’s these young women’s fault that all the world wants from them is for them to just be hot and be sexy and be young. I think Sam’s trying to say: ‘Look where we have got to in society’.”

Advertisement

Before being cast in Euphoria, Chloe worked in the porn industry, even appearing in an adult parody of the series, and recently weighed in on the show’s depiction of OnlyFans modelling in its most recent season.

Source link

The proscription of Palestine Action was sold to MPs and the media on the basis of a deliberate campaign of lies, fronted by Yvette Cooper, then Home Secretary, and Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan police. Both have deep commitment to Israel. Cooper is owned by the Israel lobby.

What is worse, they then attempted to reinforce these lies by fitting up young activists with false charges and corrupting all principles of justice in an effort to obtain false convictions. This was brought home to me most forcefully in examining thousands of pages of documents released to me by the Home Office as disclosure in the Scottish judicial review of the legality of the proscription of Palestine Action.

Redacted documents and lies

I am not allowed to reveal these thousands of pages to you, even though they have already been redacted, with large sections blacked out, and in some instances gisted, or given in precis, removing “sensitive” information.

But I shall reveal one single paragraph of one single document because I think it is overwhelmingly in the public interest to do so. It is an essential illustration of the appalling behaviour which our Israeli controlled Establishment has been exhibiting throughout this attack on Palestine Action – an organisation which, I would remind you, is trying to prevent the provision of arms to a genocide:

The criminal offences of Aggravated Burglary (s.10 Theft Act 1968) and Violent Disorder (s.2 Public Order Act 1986) have been applied to the majority of offenders identified as being directly involved in each of these incidents, while more specific criminal offences have been applied to individual subjects for: Administering a Noxious Substance (s.24 Offenes against The Person Act 1861); Threats to Kill (s.16 Offences against The Person Act 1861); Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) (s.47 Offences against The Person Act 1861); Grevious Bodily Harm (GBH) with intent (s.18 Offences against The Person Act 1861); and Participating in Activities of an Organised Crime Group (s.45 Serious Crime Act 2015).

That paragraph is from the Proscription Advisory Group, prepared by the Counter Terrorism Police, recommending proscription. It is part of a narrative they seek to build of an “escalating pattern of violence”. The claim is in essence that Palestine Action has moved from violence against property to violence against people.

The problem is, it is not true.

The Filton 25

In the Filton trial, the attempts to convict activists of violence against people – the aggravated burglary and violent disorder charges – all failed before a jury. There were twelve charges between aggravated burglary and violent disorder – and twelve acquittals. In the other incident referenced in the above paragraph – the Sandwich action – the charges of personal violence have all quietly been dropped.

So let us go through the extremely alarming list of serious charges involving violence given in that essential paragraph, from the internal Home Office documents arguing for proscription. And let us mark up the actual truth.

Aggravated Burglary – no convictions

Violent Disorder – no convictions

Administering a Noxious Substance – no convictions

Threats to Kill – no convictions

Actual Bodily Harm – no convictions

Grievous Bodily Harm – no convictions

Participating in Activities of an Organised Crime Group – no convictions

The only footnote to this is that there is one single conviction of GBH, but the jury specifically found not guilty of intent, in relation to the melee that developed at Filton after the security guards attacked the activists.

This is an astonishing, lengthy list of fabrication – offences in which the jury found as a matter of fact against the Crown. Non-existent offences were listed by the Police to recommend the proscription.

The proscription was based on an entire litany of offences that never happened.

Enforcing convictions under false pretences

But much worse than this is the attempt to enforce convictions under false pretences in the Filton trial. The catalogue of how this was done is now well known:

• Judge Johnson ruled that the defendants were not permitted to refer to their motives. He ruled that the jury may not be informed of their absolute right to acquit.
• He attempted to have the leading defence barrister, Rajiv Menon KC, prosecuted for contempt of court for informing the jury of their rights.
• He ruled that terms including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” may not be used in court.
• He ordered that the notebooks and other writings of the accused be redacted to withhold from the jury any information related to Elbit’s supply of weapons to Israel.
• He enforced the concealment from the jury of the nature of the weapons and equipment that had been damaged.
• He granted anonymity to senior Elbit staff and admitted their evidence without the defence being able to cross-examine.
• He ruled that the trial had not been prejudiced by the Secretary of State and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police stating the offences as fact throughout national media.
• He allowed the release to the media of highly edited and selective prosecution video footage during the trial, which gave a false impression of events.
• He permitted the admission of Metropolitan Police video evidence, which they had given over to Elbit’s sole custody for an entire year.
• He ruled that the jury must not be told of his stated intention to consider adding a ‘terrorist’ aggravation to any convictions.

That is an astonishing list of nefarious actions by Judge Johnson. Read it again. Many people will surely conclude that it is Judge Johnson who should be in jail.

Crown failures further undermine proscription

Despite all of Johnson’s attempts to rig the trial, despite the state trying the defendants twice when it failed to achieve convictions the first time, the Crown failed to attain its convictions on Aggravated Burglary, Violent Disorder and GBH with Intent.

But my God, they tried. How they tried!

Yvette Cooper specifically relied on the specific police litany of lies in her article for the Observer to promote the proscrpition, where she wrote:

Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for – and promoted on its website – attacks that have seen those allegedly involved subsequently charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary. Charges that include, in the assessment of the independent Crown Prosecution Service, a terrorism connection.

The “independent” Crown Prosecution Service is of course a joke – the independence of both the prosecutor and of judges like Johnson being a polite fiction of the British Establishment. The executive does not issue direct orders to judges like Johnson nor to the Director of Public Prosecutions. They don’t have to issue direct orders. Those people are only in their positions because they know what is expected of them.

The one thing they cannot reliably control is a jury, however much they may try to manipulate the information available to them. The charges in the Filton trial of aggravated burglary (which means going equipped with a weapon intending to use it against a person), of violent disorder and of GBH with Intent were always massive, politically motivated overcharging.

They were never likely to be got through a jury – given the total lack of evidence for them – no matter how much Judge Johnson attempted to manipulate the trial.

Yvette Cooper was prepared to disregard legal advice that her article would prejudice the trial, safe in the knowledge that Johnson would only ever bring contempt of court charges against the defence and not against the State.

Deproscription in Scotland

Our hearing in the Scottish Court of Session tomorrow will hear our motion that the proscription in Scotland should be suspended pending the Scottish judicial review, because in the meantime hundreds of people are having their civil liberties restricted, are facing possible arrest, and scores are facing charges for terrorist offences merely for exercising their right of free speech.

The UK government is opposing with a counter-motion to sist (postpone) the entire Scottish judicial review until all English proceedings are concluded, including a probable eventual Supreme Court decision. Their key argument is that it is constitutionally undesirable for English and Scottish courts to reach opposing decisions in a matter of “national security”.

That Scottish courts should respect English decisions they present not as colonialism but as “comity“.

They state that the constitutional argument is so important that the Advocate General herself, Catherine Smith KC, will represent the UK government in person. Indeed, this hearing was delayed two weeks to fit her diary.

Their argument is, of course, disingenuous. They are not seeking to postpone the Scottish hearing; they are seeking to stop it altogether. If it is constitutionally unacceptable to reach a different decision from the English court, then what would be the point of a Scottish judicial review at any stage?

Furthermore, they are entirely illogical because the status quo is that the government has lost to Palestine Action in England at the High Court. It is the government that is appealing there. So if they really believed in “comity”, they would drop the government case in Scotland to achieve the same position as England!

An establishment stitch-up?

Most of the argument we have submitted to court consists of analysis of the effects of the proscription and the impact of suspending it.

The government, by contrast, have not addressed the proscription at all. They are depending entirely on the constitutional argument that the court should not be hearing the case. But these exact arguments were already dismissed by the court at the permission stage. They do not become any more compelling just because a UK government minister is stating them.

Why is the government so confident it will win on the constitutional point and does not need to address the proscription?

I fear the appearance of the minister is evidence of an establishment stitch-up. My hackles rise particularly at the remarkable fact that, while the permission hearing was livestreamed and in Court No 1, this much more important hearing is not being livestreamed and is relegated to court No 6, with a much smaller public gallery. If the case is, as the government itself states, of such constitutional importance that the minister must appear in person, why is it being hidden from the public gaze?

Unfortunately, I can’t think of any answers to that question which are not deeply troubling.

Support the campaign

We desperately need more money to continue this legal case. Each stage of hearing like this costs about £30,000 and the eventual judicial review will cost much more.

Again, please contribute if you can, but do not contribute if it causes you difficulty. If you know people who are able to afford to help and likely to be sympathetic, please do contact them and ask their assistance. We are trying to keep a lot of very good people out of prison.

You can donate through the link via Crowd Justice, which goes straight to the lawyers, or through this blog.

Featured image via the Canary

By Craig Murray

Source link

So, having made a statement on Monday morning which asserted that she wouldn’t make any further statements, then making another statement on Monday afternoon, Nicola Sturgeon and her solicitor issued a third statement in 36 hours last night.

And while we acknowledge that this is a very high bar to clear, it contained one of the most troubling and blatant lies she’s ever told.

The above is a claim so jaw-droppingly obviously completely false that we had to read it several times to check it really said what we thought it said. Because for a whole raft of reasons it was ABSOLUTELY Nicola Sturgeon’s role to sign off the SNP’s accounts in 2020, when the money stolen by Murrell became indisputably noticeable, and for several years thereafter.

Section 42(2)(b) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) requires a party’s accounts to be signed off “by the management committee of the party, if there is one, and otherwise by the registered leader of the party”.

Advertisement

In the SNP’s case that means by the “Party Officers”.

(Indeed, Sturgeon herself was the treasurer in the period in 2021 between Douglas Chapman resigning because he wasn’t allowed to see the books and the hapless obedient stooge Colin Beattie being reappointed to replace him.)

And the SNP’s financial filings throughout Sturgeon’s reign make clear that she, as one of those three party officers, did indeed approve the accounts personally, and that throughout the period in question they clearly show hundreds of thousands of pounds missing in the shape of the “ringfenced Independence Referendum Campaign Fund”, which should have stood at around £670,000.

Sturgeon is not only morally but legally responsible for those accounts. It was her job as party leader to notice that they only had £97,000 in the bank when they’d just raised nearly £700,000 that they weren’t allowed to have spent.

Advertisement

But as we know, she not only failed to do so but lied threateningly to both the Scottish public and her own National Executive Committee that there was no missing money and that the finances were the healthiest they’d ever been, even at the very moment the party’s treasurer and half of its Finance Committee publicly resigned in protest to draw attention to the problem.

?

?

There’s a big difference between not knowing something, and actively and stridently insisting to everyone in sight that the exact opposite thing is definitely true. And the statement from last night then says something even more extraordinary.

Advertisement

Hold on a moment. If you don’t know anything, how much of a “detailed written response” can you actually give? What would that look like?

“Dear The Police,

I know nothing. Not anything. No things. Zero things. None of the things. 0% of the things. Out of all the things, I don’t know any of them. The things are unknown to me. You know those things? Not me, I totally don’t. I categorically deny all knowledge of the things. Me? Know the things? No sir! I quite simply cannot emphasize strongly enough that I don’t know the things. I wasn’t aware the things existed. Do they even exist? It’d totally be news to me, Nicola Ferguson Sturgeon, former First Minister of Scotland, if they did. Because I don’t know any of them. What things are you even talking about? If I was to hold up a finger, of which I have eight plus two thumbs, for each of the things I knew, I’d be holding up no fingers. Or thumbs. At all.”

(Carries on for 17 more pages.)

We’re also fascinated by the use of the word “insisted”. Who was she insisting to? Were the police going “No, please don’t send us a detailed written response! We’re begging you!”, but she was all “No, I’m flipping well going to, whether you like it or not!”? Is that how we’re being asked to believe it went?

Advertisement

And if she was so insistent on answering their questions, why not just answer them in the seven hours she spent staring silently at a police station wall instead? It must have been an awfully boring day. Why wait until some unspecified later date and write them a letter? She was arrested by prior arrangement, five weeks after Murrell, so she had plenty of warning that she might be questioned and time to have the answers ready.

(We wonder what Sturgeon and Murrell discussed at dinner over those five weeks.)

There is of course a very easy way to prove that she sent that “detailed written response” – release it. There’s no possible reason not to. Murrell has already admitted his guilt and Sturgeon is no longer under investigation, so there’s no live case to prejudice. The full list of things Murrell bought with the stolen money (many of which she’s been personally pictured with) is already public, so there’s no danger of new embarrassment. And all it says is that she knows nothing anyway. What’s to fear?

She tells us she’s got nothing to hide. So show us. Show us how convincing your denials were. Show us just how fully you, as a responsible innocent citizen, member of Parliament, role model and key witness, co-operated with a police enquiry, beyond blanking all their questions for seven long hours.

Advertisement

The only reason we can think of is that every time Sturgeon opens her mouth about this case, she digs herself a deeper hole by telling more and more easily-provable lies. She lied about not being responsible for signing off the accounts. She lied about “co-operating fully” with the police. It looks like she lied about the campervan, the biggest single piece of Murrell’s booty.

Practically the only thing she’s told the truth about in the whole sordid business is that “Peter does most of the shopping in our family”.

?

Over the coming weeks and months Sturgeon is going to have to face some very awkward questions, particularly around the serious crime of reset.

Advertisement

So she may as well get ahead of the game and tell us now.

?

Or as the investigating officer might put it:

“And you say way too much
But still I need an answer, love
Still I need an answer, love

Kindly be kind, wipe all the dirt from my eyes
I need an answer
I need an answer.”

Advertisement

Source link

In-fighting is always a bad look, but it’s especially not-good in an election. Despite this, Reform’s Zia Yusuf has publicly called out Robert Jenrick’s grip on the party’s policy platform:

Robert’s answer is not Reform policy.

As the person responsible for our deportation plan I want ensure people know where we stand:

If a foreign national lives in social housing at taxpayer expense, they automatically fail our economic test and will be deported. https://t.co/g7S7SmoDrJ

Advertisement

— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) May 26, 2026

Poverty by design

The first thing we should note is that social housing isn’t supposed to be a place where we send poor people to punish them. Currently, social housing only makes up around 16% of all households, and as such local authorities use it to house tenants with the most needs. Ideally, however, we would have enough social housing that people from all walks of life to live in.

This surplus of social housing would also mean private landlords had more competition, forcing them to keep their prices — you know — competitive. That is if we kept private landlords around, anyway. We’re not sure what benefit they’re providing, but we seem to be stuck with them for now, so let’s at least make them feel the market forces capitalists claim are so vital.

Back to the feud. Yusuf is saying we should instantly deport foreign nationals who live in social housing. His argument is only poor people live in social housing, and we don’t need any more poors, thanks. Responding to this:

• Anyone can fall on hard times.
• Many low-paying industries like care rely on foreign workers.
• If Reform doesn’t want so many poor people, the solution isn’t to banish the impoverished; it’s to close the gap between the haves and the have nots.

The purpose of wealth taxes isn’t just to bring in more money. As things stand, the wealthy are getting richer and richer because their money is doing their work for them. While you’re grinding away earning not very much, these people are seeing their portfolios balloon through no hard work of their own. They use this money to buy up Britain’s assets, and they use the power that brings to make life more favourable for themselves.

It’s a vicious cycle, and one which Reform is seeking to distract from by pointing at those who have the least.

Fighting words from Reform UK loyalists

Back to the feud, people have been saying:

Reform now in open civil-war. As I said yesterday. They’re a party that’s now experiencing a complete nervous breakdown https://t.co/Gp2IqVHy9W

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) May 26, 2026

You say two are slagging it out, but does Jenrick know he's in this fight? Seems like a bit of an unexpected drive-by. Post-Farage future of the party already up for grabs, it seems.

— Liam Stokes (@LNJStokes) May 26, 2026

Advertisement

Oops!

Looks like Zia Yusuf is about to fall out with yet another Reform MP.

Their party conference is going to be fun.

Advertisement

Yusuf can't be in the same place as Tice, Anderson or Jenrick now. pic.twitter.com/1XApR591Cf

— Don McGowan (@donmcgowan) May 26, 2026

On the broader issue of Reform politicians not seeing eye to eye, commenter Dave Lawrence noted:

WHAT is happening inside Reform?

– The new Chairman Lee Anderson – mentioned the byelection 2x if you include a retweet of the podcast
– he has made 3 tweets about the ‘visit’ to the ‘special needs’ cafe – defending it and seeking to undermine the staff in the same period.

– Jenrick and the unelected Yusuf in a public spat about immigration policy
– this a fortnight after Laila Cunningham attacked the immigration rhetoric and the fact it cost votes in London

– no-one has thanked David Bull who was sacked as Chairman who has literally disappeared whilst leaving his account as Chairman – ‘live’

– Farage is just missing.

Advertisement

As we’ve reported, Farage is no doubt avoiding media scrutiny because of a £5m gift he failed to declare. That and because he no doubt doesn’t want to answer questions about the party’s pervert by-election candidate in Makerfield.

Zack Polanski, meanwhile, took issue with Labour’s response to the feud:

A Labour minister unable to condemn Reform's plan for the mass deportations of our neighbours.

Cowardly and disgraceful.

Advertisement

Labour are incapable of standing up to Reform's divisive nonsense. Only the Green Party have the courage to do this. pic.twitter.com/62WeCq1jaL

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) May 26, 2026

Divisive by design

Reform UK is running a classic ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. Working people know they’re poorer than they used to be, and Reform is trying to convince them it’s because of foreigners, disabled people, folk who want more rights, etc — not the billionaires who suspiciously seem to be getting richer and richer while all this is going on.

The interesting thing is Reform also seems to be dividing and conquering itself. At this rate, the party is going to struggle making it to the 2029 election. After all – it’s already given rise to two different breakaway parties in Restore Britain and Advance UK.

Featured image via Leon Neal / Getty Images

By Willem Moore

Source link

Zoe Ball has shared that she’s getting used to the “quiet” since her teenage daughter opted to spend more time living with her dad Norman Cook in the lead-up to exam season.

Speaking on her podcast Dig It!, Zoe told co-host Jo Whiley that she’s currently seeing “less and less” of 16-year-old daughter Nelly as she is “based more at her dad’s now” while she prepares for her GCSEs.

“I think she’s got to that point of, ‘Ah, can I just be in one place?’,” the Radio 2 star explained, with Nelly having been based between her mum and dad’s households in recent years.

Pointing out that Nelly’s revision notes are currently all over her bedroom walls at her father’s house, Zoe continued: “It’s just [nice] not having to move from house to house, so she’s just spending more time there now.

Advertisement

“It’s only around the corner and I can nip round at any time, which is great, and she can come here if she gets upset about anything like, ‘Mum, I need you’.”

“But it’s less and less,” she lamented.

Piers Allardyce/Shutterstock

The broadcaster was married to Nelly’s father, the musician Norman Cook, better known to some as the music producer Fatboy Slim, between 1999 and 2016. The former couple also share a 25-year-old son, Woody Cook.

Zoe and Jo launched their Dig It! podcast last year, initially billing it as a reflection on “the messy and beautiful reality of living well”.

Advertisement

Earlier this month, Zoe used the podcast to address reports claiming that she was in the running to host the upcoming season of Strictly Come Dancing, before later announcing that she hadn’t landed the gig.

Source link

Ayoub Abuhejleh, a 57-year-old Palestinian farmer from the village of Deir Istiya, occupied West Bank, is on a horticultural crusade through his work with the Economic and Social Development Centre of Palestine. Abuhejleh, who is also the village’s former mayor (2011 – 2014) has swapped his suit for farming tools adamant to stay put on his land.

Farmer ordered to leave his farmland

Since 2023, Abuhejleh has planted 370 olive trees, as well as almonds, figs, and grapes. “I’ve raised these olive trees as my own children,” he tells the Canary. These plants and trees line the agricultural road leading to and from his land.

Abuhejleh spoke of the ancestral connection binding Palestinians to their lands and orchards. He is among countless Palestinians cultivating the land where their parents and their forefathers were born and raised. His family kept sheep and goats, worked their land with horses, and planted corn and other crops.

In June 2023, a settler with sheep and goats set up an outpost just 350 metres from Abuhejleh’s land. Initially, the settler caused no problems but four months later, after 7 October, everything changed. He explained that:

The settler became more aggressive, and other settlers also started coming to the outpost. They closed off my agricultural land so there was no access for me, and they also cut the main irrigation pipe.

A week later, Israeli occupation soldiers approached Abuhejleh and his family on their land while they harvested olives. It was the first time the trees were producing olives since they were planted. They quizzed the family before asking them to evacuate their grove.

Court win for Palestinian farmer, as eviction pressure mounts

This is a familiar story across the occupied West Bank. Rights groups and residents have documented occupation soldiers colluding with settlers to eject Palestinians from their land, citing intimidation, violence, arrests, and movement restrictions. The end goal is to ethnically cleanse the area and force Palestinians to cede their land. Abuhejleh was told:

It’s forbidden to go on my land, because there is a war. They said they want to protect me. I told them I knew they had come to protect the settlers because before the outpost they hadn’t come here. The soldier said he didn’t care what I said. I was given five minutes to leave.

In the area surrounding Deir Istiya village, more than 200 hectares of Palestinian-owned land have been seized so far by occupation forces — no longer accessible to Palestinian residents. Approximately 25 percent of the land is cultivated, while the rest is used for grazing. The loss has had devastating consequences for the local community.

Abuhejleh decided to fight for his right to stay through the courts, and in April 2025, an Israeli court ruled in his favour. The judge said he could reconnect the water, repair the road, and return to his land.

He did just that, but occupation soldiers continue to show up. He told the Canary how they police his every move — telling him where he can and cannot go — and take photographs of him and the Israeli activist accompanying local farmers for protection.

Sometimes they come and say we must leave, because it is a military zone. But we go weekly to the land still. In harvest season they attack us. They also make it impossible to prune, fertilize, irrigate or plough the land. This means the trees will become weaker and weaker, because we can’t take care of them.

This is what they are planning. Also, when an area is closed and we are unable to go on our land, they then steal it from us. This is because, under Israeli occupation laws, if you don’t plough your land for five years it then belongs to the state.

Abuhejleh was recently told that he needed permission from the Israeli Coordination and Liaison Office to enter his land. Without written consent, he was told he would have to leave. He refused of course, citing the Israeli court ruling granting him unhindered access to his farmland. His lawyer is now back in court arguing his case.

Abuhejleh says “Israel” has always made life difficult for Palestinians.

Israel controls everything- health, education, the economy, political issues, and also agriculture. Our village completely depends on Israeli company Mekorot for our water supply. So sometimes we wake up to find there is no water. They have cut it off completely. Lots of Palestinian farmers lose money instead of making any profit, and many are now going out of business, due to the actions of Israel. It damages the market by selling Israeli produce at lower prices than that from Palestine. They wait until Palestinian produce, for example tomatoes, are ready and go to market, and then they bring Israeli tomatoes to sell there instead. These are, of course, at a cheaper price.

This land is our land

For decades, occupation force have intentionally destroyed olive trees. They are a defining symbol of Palestinian identity and a key component of agrarian life and the local Palestinian economy.

Abuhejleh told the Canary that in Deir Istiya, occupation forces have uprooted 500 olive trees, all more than 200 years old. The same “security” excuse was parroted by the Apartheid state, with the military claiming that Palestinians had been throwing stones at settlers’ cars. This excuse was then used to clear the trees Abuhejleh had planted along the main road. The damage was done.

Settlers., no different to their military counterparts, have also been intentionally destroying trees. Farmers fence off their land to prevent livestock damaging their trees. But now find that settlers cut through these fences and allow their sheep and goats to eat the saplings and young trees. Branches which are too high for livestock to reach are often deliberately broken.

Abuhejleh describes the past two years as the worst he can remember. Still, he refuses to let up, and cede his land to illegal settlers, cognizant of the daily risk of death Palestinians face,.

Hopes of a better future

Settler expansionism and violence across the occupied West Bank is well organised, and financially backed by the Israeli occupation government.

Abuhejleh believes there will be tough and dangerous times ahead but remains hopeful that someday the situation will change. The war in Gaza has raised awareness among young people worldwide. He hopes that a new generation will confront and back an alternative to the terrorist regime that is “Israel”. Abuhejleh says:

We must fight as much as we can for access to our land, although they arrest us. I have been arrested many times, shoot us, and take what they want. We will stay here. Land is part of our life. We look with one eye on our family, and the other eye on our land.

Observers suggest this is why the Israeli occupation is in a hurry to alter the situation on the ground, and to quash the prospect of a Palestinian state for the future. In the wake of 7 October, Palestinian land theft and illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank have continued. Israeli lawmakers are also seeking to repeal the 2005 Disengagement law to repopulate previously evacuated illegal Israel settlements.

For Abuhejleh, the olive trees he planted more than a decade ago have become a symbol of a wider struggle unfolding across the occupied West Bank — one in which access to land, water and livelihoods is increasingly contested. But like most Palestinians, leaving was never an option.

Featured image via David Silverman/Getty Images

By Charlie Jaay

Source link

Cole Escola has opened up about their personal connection with Miss Piggy, ahead of their new film about the Muppets icon.

During a new interview with Tatler magazine, Cole was asked what makes Miss Piggy such a favourite of theirs, to which they responded: “She’s so awful. She behaves in a way we all wish we could behave. And we all do sometimes behave.

“I think her needs and desires come from a place of pain. And I think that is something that strikes a chord in people. But I don’t think any of that is visible, or it shouldn’t be. It should just be funny and fun.”

“Her incredibly high opinion of herself and her self-esteem and self-assuredness – all of it is delicious,” the Oh, Mary! creator added.

Advertisement

Asked which real-life figures give “Miss Piggy energy”, Cole said their gut reaction was to say Donald Trump, before settling on Anna Delvey, the fraudulent fake heiress who inspired the Netflix miniseries Inventing Anna.

“Showing up to Fashion Week with the ankle monitor? That’s Miss Piggy,” Cole claimed. “She should be writing the movie, not me. She’ll run away with the money and not work, which is exactly what Miss Piggy would do.”

They also reacted to calls for Miss Piggy to play the lead on Oh, Mary! in the future, enthusing: “She’d be the best Mary. She really should have originated the role, but I was greedy.”

Cole’s interview in Tatler coincided with the news that they will be the next actor to portray the lead in the current West End production of Oh, Mary!, following Mason Alexander Park and Catherine Tate’s respective stints.

As well as writing Oh, Mary!, Cole originated the role both on- and off-Broadway, for which they won their first Tony in 2025.

Advertisement

Read Cole Escola’s full interview in Tatler here.

Source link

The government has been accused of seeming to “cover up” its “embarrassment” by trying to hide an explosive report, which revealed the dire state of the climate and biodiversity emergencies.

The comments were made after the Cabinet Office rejected a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request from the Canary, which asked the Prime Minister’s Office to release documents showing discussions between officials about the timing of the publication of the Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security.

The assessment was published in January 2026 following an FOI request from the Green Alliance think tank. It was originally scheduled for publication in Autumn 2025. The Times reported that publication of the report was stalled by 10 Downing Street because of fears that it was too negative.

The government was shamed in the House of Lords on 23 February 2026 for its lack of transparency around the report. It was accused of only releasing it following the Green Alliance FOI request, and was urged by peers to release the unabridged version.

Canary attempt to bring more transparency to report publication rejected

On 10 February, the Canary wrote to the Prime Minister’s Office, requesting that it make public any correspondence between officials about the timing of the publication of the assessment. On 11 February, the Cabinet Office responded on behalf of the Prime Minister’s Office, saying a response would be sent by 10 March.

On 10 March, the Cabinet Office extended its own deadline to respond to the FOI request to 10 April. No formal response to the request was received by that date, so on 18 April, the Canary requested that the Cabinet Office conduct an internal review into its handling of the request – a standard procedure according to the FOI Act.

The Cabinet Office did not respond to the request for an internal review, so on 22 April, the Canary requested that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) intervene to get a response. On 14 May, the ICO informed the Canary that the ICO had asked the Cabinet Office to respond.

Finally, on 18 May, the Cabinet Office sent its response to the original FOI request. In its response, which ignored the request for an internal review, it said:

We are writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, we have established that the information you requested is held by the Cabinet Office.

However, we have determined that this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 24(1) FOIA. Section 24 exempts information from disclosure if its exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

According to the ICO, in terms of Section 24 of the FOI Act, “there is no definitive definition of national security”, and this gives public authorities broad authority within which to reject FOI requests.

FOI rejection ‘has the feel of the government covering up their cover-up’ – peer

Green Party peer Jenny Jones spoke in the 23 February debate in the House of Lords about the assessment, and reviewed the FOI rejection sent to the Canary.

She said:

This has the feel of the government covering up their cover-up by claiming national security when it is really just their embarrassment at trying to hide the report in the first place.

I’m worried that this government is trying to downplay the national security issues relating to climate change because it lacks the will to take action and deal with them.

The impacts of the climate crisis are huge and they will grow every year and every decade. If we don’t prepare now then our economy and society could collapse under the strain.

Government’s ‘caginess’ over assessment publication raises transparency concerns

Analysis from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – the organisation which publishes the high-profile Doomsday Clock – published an article on 23 February 2026. It was written by the US National Security Archive’s Climate Change Transparency Project director Rachel Santarsiero, where she quoted former US intelligence official at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Rod Schoonover.

Schoonover said:

The rigour of the Defra assessment doesn’t negate its bungled rollout, nor the public backlash that ensued. Any pull back from transparency is a mistake from any government.

He added:

I suspect that the intelligence community did not make the determination that this [report] should not go forward. It feels like [it came from] someone higher up.

Santarsiero reacted to the FOI rejection sent to the Canary and said:

There are many legitimate reasons for keeping classified intelligence classified (like protecting genuine national security concerns or not wanting to identify specific sources and methods used in intelligence gathering).

For example, in the United States, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence creates both a classified and unclassified version of its Annual Threat Assessment, and it’s upfront with the public about this.

Once every two years, the UK Government publishes a National Risk Register, which it says “is the external version of the National Security Risk Assessment (NSRA)”. The register “outlines the most serious risks facing the United Kingdom”.

Santarsiero continued:

But the UK government’s bungled rollout of the biodiversity report – and ensuing caginess in its back and forth since – certainly does not inspire confidence in the government’s commitment to transparency.

Even if the PM’s office is shielding citizens from very real national security threats, how it’s gone about it has eroded public trust and credibility – which can be more damaging in the long-run in protecting against global risks.

The distraction provided by the Labour leadership psychodrama is unlikely to inspire the government to engage in greater transparency over issues like the nature security assessment, which would potentially open it up to more criticism of its lack of action on the climate and biodiversity emergencies.

Featured image via Anita Pouchard Serra/Bloomberg/Getty Images

By Tom Pashby

Source link