Georgia L Gilholy is a journalist.

Generally speaking, you will be hard pressed to find something that myself and Ed Davey agree on. But this week, the jolly but rather juvenile Liberal Democrat leader, told MPs that “Antisemitism and those who fuel it have no place in our society,” and urged the government to finally proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as terrorists.

His remarks come mere days after four ambulances belonging to the Jewish Haztola volunteer service, which charitably helps local Jews and non-Jews in need of paramedics, were set on fire in Golders Green. Police understandably remain cautious about assigning a motive, but the Iranian terror proxy “Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya” quickly claimed responsibility for the attack- the latest in a long line of Islamist plots against Jewish organisations.

​This is the grim backdrop against which Britain is still having an oddly timid argument about the IRGC, the financial and strategic backbone of the Islamic Republic’s global and domestic terror apparatus. It is this ideological army that has played a vanguard to Iran’s theocratic regime since the 1979 revolution, and which has played its part not only in overseas attacks but in the slaughter, rape and torture of much of the country’s own population.

​For years now, British ministers and officials have warned that Iranian state actors and their proxies pose a real threat on our soil. MI5 director-general Ken McCallum said last year that the service had responded to more than 20 Iran-backed plots in the UK. The point is not that every alarming incident can be pinned on Tehran before the evidence is in. It is that the wider threat picture is already well established. Last Summer our security services foiled an alleged Iranian plot to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Kensington mere hours ahead of time. Earlier this month four Iranians in London were arrested on suspicion of spying on Jewish communities.

​A new Labour Friends of Israel paper, launched in the House of Lords on Wednesday, puts the case starkly. The report, authored by senior United Against Nuclear Iran research analyst Jemima Shelley, correctly frames  the IRGC as “Iran’s primary exporter of terrorism abroad” and the regime’s “iron fist against domestic dissent”. It also makes a point that ought to embarrass ministers: sanctions may “create friction”, but proscription “creates criminal liability and fundamentally alters operational ability” to root out this dangerous force.

​​The standard excuse is that the IRGC is part of the Iranian state, and that the Terrorism Act 2000 was not really designed for bodies such as this . Indeed, Joshua Rozenberg KC noted earlier this month that Jonathan Hall KC’s 2025 review concluded Parliament had never intended the 2000 Act’s proscription regime to apply to state entities, which is why Labour promised a new state-threats power instead. The trouble is that, almost 12 months after Yvette Cooper’s commitment to create that new power, there is still no timetable for legislation.

​So the government is caught in the worst of both worlds. It says the existing law is the wrong tool, but has not yet produced the replacement tool it promised. This is despite the fact that Labour’s manifesto specifically pledged to ban the group. It is interesting that Sir Keir Starmer seems much more keen to allocate swathes of parliamentary time to the highly controversial Private Member’s Bill on assisted suicide-which was not part of his party’s election platform-than to a clampdown on specific element of the antisemitic, Islamist terror threat that he promised voters he would execute? Perhaps he simply cares much more about the former issue, than he does about the latter, regardless of public opinion?

​Even now, Lord Blunkett is arguing that the government could immediately proscribe the IRGC’s external operations arm, the Quds Force, under existing terror laws, while bringing forward legislation to deal with the IRGC in full. He points to Canada’s example: ban the Quds Force first, then move wider later. That feels a great deal more serious than the government’s present position, which seems to consist mainly of saying the matter remains “under review”.

The political pressure is plainly building. On Thursday, The Telegraph reported that retired MI6, MI5 and GCHQ chiefs have taken the uncharacteristic step of publicly criticising Keir Starmer’s failure to proscribe the IRGC, calling it a “necessary step” and warning that continued hesitancy risks leaving Britain yet further “strategically exposed”.

​There are, of course, some reasons ministers may hesitate. Proscription would carry diplomatic consequences. It could further narrow Britain’s room for manoeuvre with Tehran, and there are concerns about British nationals who have been arrested in Iran-generally on false charges-and about whatever residual value remains in maintaining channels. But these are arguments about costs, not arguments that the threat is unreal or that endless delay is sustainable.

​But as the former intelligence chiefs reportedly argued, Britain’s leverage in today’s Tehran is already minimal, and ministers should have the honesty to say so. We are not calling the shots in the region, nor will we be capable of playing a serious role again if we continue to deplete our military and industrial capacity.

​The Tories mulled over a ban and failed to deliver. Labour was happy to condemn that hesitation in opposition, but in power, its approach has been equally lacklustre.​

For decades, Britain has tolerated violence intimidation from the IRGC and its proxies within our borders.  In 2023, pro-democracy news channel Iran International, whose staff have suffered violent attacks from pro-regime partisans, abandoned its historic London studio because our police could no longer guarantee its safety in a “free” country.

​Leaving the IRGC somewhat to its own devices in Britain makes a mockery of our country and puts real people’s lives in danger. The government must either proscribe what they can now and legislate fast for the rest, or explain their cowardice to the public.

Dr Azeem Ibrahim OBE is the Chief Strategy Officer at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy and author of A Greater Britain: Rethinking UK Grand Strategy and Statecraft 

Let me be blunt about what is happening in the Middle East because our government has been anything but.

The joint American and Israeli campaign against Iran is not a skirmish. It is not a limited operation. It is a fundamental restructuring of the regional order one that has already shuttered Dubai International Airport sent Iranian drones over Gulf cities that once felt as safe as Zurich and left tens of thousands of British nationals asking themselves a question they never expected to ask is it time to go home? The answer for many of them is yes. The question for this government is whether it is ready to say yes and were ready for you.

Right now, it isn’t. And that needs to change urgently imaginatively and with the kind of political boldness that this moment demands.

I have spent the better part of two decades advising governments on security policy in Washington in Whitehall at the G7. I was an adviser to the 2021 Integrated Defence and Security Review. I know what a genuine strategic opportunity looks like and I know just as clearly when governments are about to sleep through one.

This is that moment.

There are an estimated 250,000 British nationals living and working across the Gulf states in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, Doha, Kuwait City, Bahrain, Muscat. They are not for the most part oligarchs or tax exiles. They are engineers keeping the lights on in Jeddah. Teachers in international schools in Dubai. Nurses architects project managers bankers. Hardworking British people who chose the Gulf for opportunity and the sunshine and who have over years sometimes over decades accumulated savings in a zero tax environment that the UK could only dream of.

Many of them want to come home. The war with Iran has focused minds in a way that even Covid never quite managed. What they need from the British government is not a Foreign Office travel advisory telling them to avoid non-essential travel. They need an active positive financially intelligent welcome. Here is what I am proposing and what I have reason to believe is already being considered in Treasury circles.

It’s a three-month Remittance Tax Holiday.

Any British national abroad who remits savings to a UK bank account during a defined window would be exempt from UK income tax and capital gains tax on those funds provided they invest a minimum of 25000 in one of two new government backed bonds. Two bonds. Both sovereign guaranteed. Both tax free on interest payments for subscribing investors. The first a British Defence Bond paying 4.0 per cent fixed over five years with every penny of proceeds ring fenced for defence procurement missiles ships autonomous systems the domestic manufacturing base that two decades of peace dividend eviscerated. The second a GB Housing Bond paying 4.5 per cent fixed over five years directed entirely at building the social and affordable homes this country so desperately needs.

After meeting the 25,000 minimum the remainder of what they bring back is theirs to spend on a house a business a savings account their children’s school fees. No strings. No bureaucratic labyrinth. No Whitehall working group deciding how they should allocate their own hard-earned money. The economics are compelling. If 250,000 British nationals each remit an average of 100000 a conservative figure for professionals who have spent a decade in the tax-free Gulf the total inflow is 25 billion. The mandatory minimum subscriptions alone guarantee 6.25 billion in bond proceeds. If investors go further and the tax equivalent yield of 4.5 per cent tax free is over 7 per cent gross for a higher rate taxpayer making it one of the most attractive retail savings instruments in living memory total bond capital could reach 12 to 15 billion. Split roughly equally between defence and housing that is a transformational sum for both national priorities.

Let us talk about defence first because this is where the urgency is most acute.

The 2026 Iran conflict has exposed the brittleness of NATO and Western munitions stockpiles in a way that should alarm every serious policymaker. The UK has deployed assets in support of operations across the region. Those stockpiles do not replenish themselves. The government has committed to 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence roughly 75 billion a year but that commitment is stretched across a thousand competing demands and the Treasurys conventional borrowing appetite is not infinite. A British Defence Bond changes the equation. It is not borrowed money. It is voluntary private capital offered by citizens who want to see their country strong in exchange for a guaranteed return. This is how Britain financed two world wars. It is time to dust off the model.

And then there is housing.

The GB Housing Bond is if anything even more timely. We have a chronic decades long failure to build enough homes. Every returning British national who brings capital back and eventually wants to buy a property will find a market in which demand already vastly outstrips supply. The Housing Bond funds the supply side social housing affordable homes brownfield development so that the returning wave of expatriates does not simply inflate prices further but lands into a market that is expanding to meet them.

These two bonds are not in competition. They are complementary instruments addressing two of the three greatest challenges Britain faces security and shelter. The third growth is addressed by the investment activity of returning nationals themselves.

I am aware that some will say this is too generous. That it rewards people who left. That it amounts to a tax break for the comfortable classes.

I disagree forcefully.

These are British citizens. They built careers abroad because Britain frankly did not give them the opportunities they deserved at home. They paid taxes in their host countries they contributed to those economies, and they did so as ambassadors for British expertise and British values. Now they want to come back. Penalising them for doing so slamming them with a tax bill on savings they accumulated abroad in a crisis not of their making would be not just economically foolish but morally wrong.

Britain has long had an uncomfortable relationship with its diaspora. We either ignore them or we treat their return as a tax opportunity. This policy proposes a third path genuine welcome mutual benefit and a clear national purpose. You come home you invest in the country the country invests in you.

The window will not stay open forever. The conflict in the Gulf is fluid. If Iran stabilises or if regional economies recover faster than expected the incentive for British nationals to repatriate their savings will diminish. The government has perhaps six months to seize this moment.

The bonds are ready to be designed. The statutory instruments are straightforward. NSI can build the subscription portal. HMRC can process the certifications. British embassies in Dubai Riyadh Doha and Abu Dhabi can set up the advice desks tomorrow.

What is needed is political will. A Prime Minister willing to stand up and say we see you we want you back and here is what we will build together.

Two bonds. A tax holiday. A homecoming.

It is the simplest most elegant most patriotic economic policy this government could announce. The question is whether anyone in Number Ten is bold enough to announce it.

Dubai’s luxury property market is evolving rapidly, with global investors showing growing interest in homes that offer more than premium finishes and prestigious addresses. One of the clearest signs of this shift is the rising demand for branded villa communities, which combine private residential living with the design identity, service culture and lifestyle appeal of internationally recognised luxury names. These developments are becoming increasingly attractive to high-net-worth buyers who want exclusivity, strong long-term positioning and a more curated ownership experience. In a market known for innovation and ambition, branded villa communities are emerging as a standout segment because they align with what modern luxury investors value most: privacy, prestige, convenience and a distinctive sense of place.

A More Refined Definition of Luxury

Luxury in Dubai is no longer defined by size alone. Today’s premium buyer is more interested in the full living experience, including architecture, landscaping, wellness amenities, privacy and service standards. Branded villa communities respond to this shift by offering homes that feel intentionally designed around a lifestyle rather than simply built to a luxury specification. The presence of a recognised brand can influence everything from interiors and clubhouse design to concierge services and resident experiences, giving the development a stronger identity in the market. This matters to global investors because it creates a product that feels more complete, more memorable and more competitive than a conventional standalone villa in an upscale district.

Why Global Investors Are Paying Closer Attention

International investors are increasingly drawn to branded villa communities because they reduce uncertainty in a foreign market. A well-known brand can offer reassurance about the quality of planning, design execution, maintenance standards and overall positioning, which is especially valuable for buyers who may not be deeply familiar with every sub-community in Dubai. Beyond that, these developments often have a clearer narrative, making them easier to understand and more appealing from both an emotional and investment perspective. For many overseas buyers, the attraction lies in owning a luxury asset that carries a recognisable standard and can be more easily differentiated in a competitive market where prestige and perception play an important role.

Prestige Has Become Part of the Investment Case

Prestige has always influenced buying decisions in the luxury segment, but branded villa communities turn prestige into a more structured value proposition. Buyers are not just purchasing a large home in an attractive location; they are buying into a branded environment that signals exclusivity, quality and status. This symbolic value matters because it helps the asset stand out among other high-end properties and can strengthen its appeal at the point of resale. In Dubai, where premium supply continues to expand, product differentiation has become essential, and branded villas benefit from a clearer identity than many conventional luxury homes. That stronger positioning can make them more appealing to both current buyers and future purchasers.

Lifestyle-Led Demand Is Reshaping Luxury Buying

A major reason for the growth of branded villa communities is that luxury real estate decisions are becoming increasingly lifestyle-led. Buyers still care about capital appreciation and prime locations, but they are also placing more emphasis on wellness, privacy, service, security and the overall atmosphere of the community. The home is now judged as much by the environment it creates as by its physical specifications. For instance, the sustained demand for villas in Palm Jumeirah highlights how strongly luxury buyers continue to value beachfront privacy, iconic views and prime residential prestige. These same factors are also supporting the rise of branded villa communities, which package similar lifestyle benefits within a more structured and intentionally curated living environment. Interested investors can search for Palm Jumeirah villas on Bayut, a leading property portal in the UAE, to explore a wide variety of luxury residences.

Scarcity Strengthens Long-Term Appeal

Scarcity remains one of the most important drivers of value in the prime residential segment, and branded villa communities benefit strongly from limited supply. These projects are often launched in carefully controlled phases with fewer homes, lower density planning, larger plots and more private surroundings, making them feel distinctly exclusive. For affluent buyers, that rarity enhances desirability, while for investors it supports stronger long-term positioning by reducing direct competition. In a market where new luxury developments are regularly introduced, homes that feel harder to replicate tend to hold attention more effectively. A branded villa community can therefore offer both physical scarcity and conceptual scarcity, which together make it a more defensible luxury asset over time.

Service Standards Add Another Layer of Value

One of the clearest advantages of branded villa communities is the level of service they can provide. These developments often go beyond the standard amenities found in traditional gated neighbourhoods by incorporating concierge support, wellness facilities, private club environments, enhanced security and professionally managed shared spaces. This service dimension is especially attractive to international buyers who may not live in Dubai throughout the year and want their homes to remain well maintained and ready for use. For second-home owners and seasonal residents, the convenience of a professionally managed environment adds real value because it makes ownership simpler and more enjoyable. In this sense, branded villas appeal not only because of prestige, but because they deliver a more seamless luxury experience.

Golf and Resort Communities Reflect the Trend

The popularity of branded villa communities also reflects the broader strength of lifestyle-oriented luxury districts in Dubai, particularly golf and resort-style environments. Buyers in this segment consistently respond to low-density settings, landscaped surroundings and communities that offer more tranquillity and privacy than dense urban locations. For instance, the continued appeal of villas for sale in Jumeirah Golf Estates shows how strongly investors respond to landscaped surroundings, premium community planning and a lifestyle-led setting. These same qualities help explain why branded villa communities are becoming more desirable, since they similarly emphasise environment, exclusivity and a fully developed lifestyle concept rather than just the home itself.

Why Dubai Is the Perfect Market for Branded Villas

Dubai is particularly well suited to the growth of branded villa communities because it already attracts the exact buyer profile these developments target. High-net-worth individuals are drawn to the emirate for its safety, infrastructure, global connectivity, tax-efficient environment and reputation for luxury living, while the city itself has built a strong international image around ambition, design and premium experiences. This creates the perfect setting for branded residential concepts, especially in the villa segment where privacy and space are highly valued. Branded communities fit naturally into Dubai’s wider luxury narrative because they combine what the city already offers with a more structured, globally recognisable standard of upscale living that resonates strongly with international wealth.

The Long Term Appeal of Branded Villa Communities

From an investment perspective, branded villa communities align closely with where luxury demand is heading. Buyers are becoming more selective, more lifestyle-conscious and more interested in homes that combine privacy, design quality, service and identity in one product. Branded villas meet those expectations particularly well, which is why they are increasingly viewed as more than a short-term trend. They appeal to a wide pool of affluent end-users, second-home buyers and overseas investors, while also offering stronger differentiation in the resale market. As Dubai continues to attract global capital and expand its premium housing stock, branded villa communities are likely to remain one of the most compelling opportunities in the high-end segment because they reflect the future of luxury living rather than the past.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are branded villa communities in Dubai usually freehold?

Yes, many branded villa communities in Dubai are offered as freehold properties, especially when they are located in designated investment zones that allow foreign ownership.

Do branded villa communities offer better rental appeal?

They can, particularly among high-net-worth tenants who value privacy, prestige, premium amenities and professionally managed living environments.

Are branded villa communities mostly off-plan or ready?

Many branded villa projects in Dubai are launched as off-plan developments, although the market also includes ready luxury villas in established high-end communities.

Do buyers pay a premium for branded villas?

Yes, branded villas often command a premium because buyers are paying for brand association, curated design, elevated services and a more exclusive lifestyle offering.

Are branded villa communities a good option for second-home ownership?

Yes, they are often well suited to second-home buyers because they offer strong management standards, convenience, security and a more seamless ownership experience.

What factors should investors compare before buying in a branded villa community?

Investors should compare location, brand reputation, developer track record, community amenities, plot size, service model, payment plan and long-term resale potential before making a decision.

On 25 March, police monitoring group Netpol released its annual protest report. Building on the foundation of the 2024 report ‘This is Repression’ — the latest version is entitled ‘How Repression Became Routine’ (2025). What’s more, it makes for chilling, but sadly familiar, reading.

The Canary sent Skwawkbox out to report on the launch event itself. You can read his article here, which also serves to introduce the report. Likewise, you can read the full report here. 

In this article, we’ll take a bit of a closer look at the report itself, along with its main findings.

Core findings

With the 2024 report already having concluded that Britain exists in a state of repression, Netpol stated that:

Between July 2025 and February 2026, Netpol conducted in-depth qualitative research within protest movements, drawing on interviews, testimonies, legal observer notes, court records, police and government data, media coverage and 21 Freedom of Information requests.

Our findings show that repression has become routine in British protest policing: new and overlapping laws, combined with a growing tendency to treat protest as a security issue, have normalised surveillance, heavy-handed policing, and punishment, with harm concentrated on marginalised groups. Protest is increasingly policed as a matter of threat management rather than democratic expression.

Netpol produced the 2025 report with the help of the Article 11 Trust. Back in 2020, the charity was set up with the aim of defending the rights to freedom of assembly, as set out under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The 2025 report broke its core findings down into five overarching points:

1. Officers are exercising powers beyond and ahead of gaining the lawful authority to do so.
2. The police are using layered legislation to confuse and control protestors.
3. Security logics now dominate protest policing.
4. The restriction of protests has spread out over a wider geographical area.
5. The gap in police accountability is widening.

Power beyond authority

The new report highlighted the fact that police forces, and especially the Met, have made unlawful use of their powers. More specifically, they’re exercising powers like ‘cumulative disruption’ conditions before they’ve even passed through parliament.

Police already have powers to impose conditions on protests that cause “serious disruption to the life of the community”. These were put in place by the Public Order Act 1986.

However, the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill proposes to amend this to allow police to consider ‘cumulative disruption’, ie. the effect of repeated protests. This would effectively allow officers to treat multiple minor protests in the same manner as larger ‘disruptive’ protests.

Netpol stated that it had seen evidence suggesting that:

these trailed powers are already being used, despite provisions not yet having been passed into law. In May, for example, the Met used Public Order powers to block International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) protests, citing the ‘cumulative impact’ of weekly protests. Similarly, in
November, the Met forced Palestine Solidarity Coalition (PSC) to change the route of its planned march, citing the “cumulative effect of [PSC] protests”.

Likewise, the report also found that police continued to use powers even after they’d been appealed. In particular, the monitoring group cited police use of the repealed ‘more than minor’ threshold for serious disruption.

Layered legislation

Next up, the police abuse of layered legislation. Forces across the country have access to a wide array of powers granted by multiple pieces of legislation. Officers are using these layered powers to confuse and control protesters – and also to maximise their intelligence gathering and data capture.

The report explained that:

Because these powers overlap, it is often unclear which rules apply and why, even before any enforcement action takes place.

As a case study, Netpol cited what it called the “34-60aa-50-35 dance”. This was a specific and targeted weaponisation of layered legislation noted by legal observers in Bristol. In sequence, it goes:

• Section 60aa (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) requires the removal of face coverings and creates a pretext for stopping people without reasonable suspicion

• Section 34 (Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) provides authorisation for police to disperse protesters for up to 48 hours, effectively criminalising protesters for assembling once deemed as ‘likely’ to cause disorder. This, in turn, sets the precedent for the steps that follow.

• Section 50 follows, criminalising non-compliance and providing an easy arrest mechanism while also acting as an intelligence-gathering model which allows police to identify movement actors.

• Section 35 (Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) is then evoked, allowing the police to clear out protesters once data collection has been completed.

Security logics

Chillingly, the report also found that national security and counterterrorism logics are now embedded in routine protest policing. This means that authorities are framing dissent is framed as an existential security threat. These ‘exceptional’ concerns allow them to ‘justify’ the use of repressive tactics.

Netpol stated that:

We have seen the unprecedented application of counter-terrorism legislation – in particular, the Terrorism Act 2000 – largely in response to Palestine solidarity protest, including to proscribe direct action group Palestine Action.

This legislation was ostensibly drafted to tackle extreme threats to national security. However, we’re now regularly seeing it weaponised against demonstrators going about what was once ordinary protest activity.

Even the National Security Act 2023 is now being used against protesters and journalists, marking the even greater application of national security powers against political dissent.

Geographical spread

Across Britain, the use of powers to restrict assemblies shot up by 230% over 2024 – 2025. What’s more, where this repression was once largely limited to London (and the Met), it’s now spreading.

In part, this is a reflection of the fact that the protest landscape itself is seeing a lower proportion of large-scale national marches. Instead, “sustained, local and site-based assemblies” are dominating the scene.

Until March 2025, the Met was the only force to impose wholesale restrictions on marches. However, this year’s restrictions on assemblies were far less localised. The report explained that:

This pattern indicates the widening geographical spread of public order policing through restrictions placed on static and sustained protests outside weapons factories, local government buildings and hotels homing refugees.

Widening accountability gap

Finally, whilst police powers have grown in number and scope, there’s been no corresponding growth in accountability. Instead, the public’s powers to scrutinise and restrain the police have grown weaker. Legislative and policy changes are also undermining accountability and routes to redress policy repression.

Meanwhile, pre-emptive approaches to policing are on the rise, enabled by vast surveillance networks. By its nature, these pre-crime tactics are opaque and difficult for the public to scrutinise.

Likewise, the danger for journalists and legal observers – the people documenting police repression – is increasing. This reduces accountability by eroding methods of evidence collection. The report stated that:

We spoke to one legal observer who had been stopped by the police on fabricated charges, noting that
police harassment had forced them to take a step back in 2025, while another was arrested at the national PSC demonstration in January 2025.

We have also received a number of reports of police violence against legal observers, ranging from being caught in kettles, to being pepper sprayed, to being shoved into objects and vehicles. One legal observer told us that they no longer give too much thought to being pushed by police due to experiencing this kind of force as a regular occurrence over the summer of 2025.

Conclusion

Whilst the findings of the report detailed a chilling escalation of repressive policing, Netpol took care not to end on a hopeless note. Rather, they emphasised the fact that the public is resisting, and we have not yet given up—and the movement is growing:

Despite the trends identified in this report, repression has not yet silenced dissent. Instead, solidarity with protest movements throughout 2025 strengthened, with steadfast resilience shown by those protesting for Palestine and communities defending themselves against far-right and anti-migrant demonstrations.

Crucially, the ability to protest has been upheld by those who build and sustain the infrastructures of resistance, amid depleted resources and increasingly complex legal and political environments. However, with the passing of another year, the stakes of exercising the right to protest have once again increased. It is vital that we reject the idea that repression is inevitable before the dwindling space to dissent disappears.

The UK government, and the police along with them, have built a state in which repression has become routine. However, the public has—time and time again—met them head-on. The state is witnessing first-hand that we cannot be legislated into submission, and that we will not let go of our rights and freedoms without a fight.

Featured image via the Canary

On 24 March, the Green Left consolidated its role as a key force in Danish politics. It has grown from 15 to 20 seats in the Folketing. And this is a clear signal of rising support for green and progressive policies, another in a series of recent Green Party breakthroughs across Europe.

In November 2025, the Green Left won the local elections in Copenhagen, with Sisse Marie Welling becoming the Lord Mayor of Denmark’s capital. In late February in the UK, the Green Party resoundingly won the Gorton and Denton by-election in Greater Manchester. While in early March, the German Greens achieved a major regional victory in Baden-Württemberg, and won the Mayorship of Munich for the first time.

Green Left has been the official English name since 2022 of the Socialistisk Folkeparti, or SF. That translates directly to Socialist People’s Party. It campaigns on a range of issues, prioritising economic justice and care for the environment. It has been a full member of the European Green Party since 2014.

Ciarán Cuffe, co-chair of the European Green Party, said:

Our member Green Left becoming for the first time the second-biggest force in the Danish parliament shows that voters across Europe are turning to Greens for credible solutions on the issues that matter most: protection of nature, a society with less stress, and affordable energy from renewable sources that are not exposed to geopolitical shocks.

The Danish success confirms strong recent results for Green parties in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands.

Vula Tsetsi, co-chair of the European Green Party, added:

The series of successes starts to show a pattern of people voting for a green future across Europe. There is again a clear appetite among voters to put social welfare, climate and environmental action at the top of the political agenda.

Europeans support the strategy to invest in renewables to secure European energy independence. From Copenhagen to Lyon, from Manchester to Amsterdam, people are choosing a future that protects their health, their environment, and their bills.

Featured image via Green Left

As we’ve reported, Labour Together have been the key drivers of the disastrous Keir Starmer government. Key members of the group also facilitated the disastrous return and exit of Peter Mandelson. And in a sign of just how disastrous it’s been for them, it seems the group is now trying to hide their connections to Mandelson:

Isn’t this strange… Labour Together deleted this post from X showing an LT event at 2023 Labour conference, addressed by Peter Mandelson, @jreynoldsMP and hosted by Josh Simons. This screengrab was taken two weeks ago, so only deleted since then. Would be a shame if it was… pic.twitter.com/PsgwzVF9eH

— The Fraud (@StarmertheFraud) March 25, 2026

The Frauds

The Fraud is a book written by investigative journalist Paul Holden. The book covers Starmer’s rise to power, aided as he was by Labour Together. In a passage serialised by the Canary, Holden wrote:

Labour fought the December 2019 general election with a base split by Brexit and a party divided against itself. It went down to a heavy defeat. After Jeremy Corbyn resigned the helm, Keir Starmer wasted no time in putting his own name forward for the role of new party leader. Starmer’s leadership campaign was a slick affair, launched and defined by a well-produced video that touted his leftist credentials and values. One campaign insider described how, from the outset, it was streets ahead of any contenders in terms of messaging, organisation, infrastructure, and funding.

Starmer could launch his candidacy so quickly thanks to years of preparation largely outside the public eye. This work was done by a political project operating through an organisation called Labour Together. The project had likely started preparing for a leadership contest before Starmer was even aware of its existence. Labour Together provided access to funders. It would also supply Starmer’s key officials including his Svengali, Morgan McSweeney, and many of his future shadow cabinet and cabinet ministers.

Advertisement

The Fraud covers the “illegal funding that made Starmer Labour leader“, as well as the “antisemitism crisis” which Labour Together concocted to smear their opponents.

For the crime of reporting accurately on their activities, Labour Together sent private investigators to spy on Paul Holden. It would later come out that Labour Together also spied on mainstream journalists, creating a national scandal that forced Labour Together director Josh Simons to step down from his ministerial position. Simons is one of the men pictured at the top alongside Peter Mandelson.

All in it together

At this point, it’s clear why Labour Together would want to distance themselves from long-time Epstein pal Peter Mandelson. At the same time, Labour Together’s image is so tarnished that Mandelson probably wants nothing to do with them either.

What a wretched group to have found themselves at the heart of government.

Featured image via the Canary

As reported by the Canary on 19 March 2026, a convoy of activists travelled to Cuba to protest the US blockade on the country. In a seeming act of revenge, US authorities have now harassed these activists upon their return to the states:

DHS detaining returnees from Cuba, taking their phones, photographing private journals.

Doing this after the successful delivery of tons of aid to Cuba? Sounds like someone’s embarrassed at the initiative taken by US citizens to help the Cuban people.https://t.co/HT8VAAeF27

— noah kulwin (@nkulw) March 25, 2026

Cuba Convoy

As Ed Sykes reported for the Canary:

Donald Trump’s second administration has massively tightened the longstanding US stranglehold on Cuba. His escalating campaign of terror has brought the island’s health system to its knees, putting thousands of lives at risk.

The US is preventing other countries from exporting fuel to Cuba. This is slowly causing the country to grind to a halt:

BREAKING: Cuba’s electrical grid has suffered a complete and total collapse.

It’s the first nationwide blackout since the US blocked the flow of oil to Cuba.

This was entirely caused by the US.

The US is strangling Cuba to death so it can come in & take control of the country. pic.twitter.com/QBjdvKlIuc

Advertisement

— Power to the People ☭🕊 (@ProudSocialist) March 16, 2026

Anyone in favor of the US stranglehold on Cuba should listen to this Newsmax interview with @RyanGrim, who just returned from there with harrowing stories.

His key question: why do Americans want to dictate who governs Cuba, while forcibly causing Cubans’ deaths from no fuel? https://t.co/BGJfUpKY4J

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 25, 2026

Fuel is still reaching private companies, however, demonstrating that the US is pursuing a corporate takeover of its island neighbour:

The U.S. has sent about 30,000 barrels of fuel to Cuba’s private sector in 2026, despite a broader oil blockade targeting the Cuban government.

The policy, led by the Trump administration, aims to support private businesses while restricting state-run entities.

Shipments are… pic.twitter.com/jNRrWyLvlZ

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 25, 2026

Sykes added:

Numerous social movements, humanitarian groups, trade unionists, and public figures have stepped up to try and scupper Trump’s plans, though.

These groups and individuals have built a coalition to send humanitarian supplies to Cuba, including medicine, food, and solar equipment. In particular, this aid seeks to support medical workers and their patients, while ensuring children have access to vital nutrition.

The first of the venture from the ‘Nuestra América Convoy‘ has already arrived on the island. And more will arrive in the coming days:

BREAKING 🇨🇺 The first delegation of the Nuestra América Convoy arrives to Havana. pic.twitter.com/WEaln5H84S

— Progressive International (@ProgIntl) March 18, 2026

Harassed

In the video at the top, musician and activist Lavish Mack explains:

Yo, this is Lavish and many other people from the Nuestra convoy. We just returned from Cuba and landed in Miami. We’re in the International Airport right now. 18 out of the 20 of us had our phones taken. We were all detained by Border Patrol and interrogated for, I think, about three hours about what exactly we were doing in Cuba, even though they know exactly what we were doing, which is delivering 30 tons of humanitarian, much-needed aid to the Cuban people.

Additionally, the last six people that they took were the Black people. And they just had us in there until Chris finally spoke up and was like, yo, this is a bad little look for y’all. We about to sue you. Then they started expediting and getting us through, but they took all of our phones.

The Chris in question was labour organiser Chris Smalls who famously took on Amazon. Smalls has also supported the people of Palestine:

Chris Smalls, a former Amazon Labor Union leader and prominent labor organizer who was recently abducted and abused by Israel, calls out unions that refuse to criticize Israel and announces a campaign to pressure the AFL-CIO and the ILA.💪 pic.twitter.com/KMHlcWiqIj

— Furkan Gözükara (@FurkanGozukara) August 19, 2025

In the Lavish Mack video above, another activist said:

But the other thing I want to add is that I asked for legal counsel many, many times. I said, can I have legal counsel? They said no. And I said, I hear you, but I would really like to have legal counsel. I said… I’m not going to lock the phone until I speak to legal counsel. You may be 100 percent right, but I’m going to feel more comfortable first. So I want to let you know that they said they have warrantless search powers. Maybe they’re right. Maybe they’re not. But that’s what they said.

A ‘just in case’ video posted by Lavish Mack states he’s been detained by Border Patrol while returning to the U.S. Another post on his account says his passport has been seized.

Mack is a musician and vocal supporter of Palestinian liberation. He is also a U.S. citizen. pic.twitter.com/wpj1beqqkj

— Talia Jane ❤️‍🔥 (@taliaotg) July 12, 2025

Full-on imperialism

As many have highlighted, the US has moved into a new phase in which its imperial ambitions are increasingly transparent:

They WILL run the Venezuela playbook on Cuba. Indict the political leadership, invade, install a pliant government that will let US business interests carve up the island. You can see it coming a mile away. https://t.co/cg9pSvnzsT

— Nathan J Robinson (@NathanJRobinson) March 26, 2026

Advertisement

It’s important that people in the West make it clear that we will not tolerate this from our leaders.

Solidarity to all those who are taking a stand.

Featured image via Instagram

The man who was filmed verbally abusing a Palestinian Al Jazeera journalist in North London is a serving Met Police special constable and apparent fan of “Tel Aviv Tommy” Robinson.

The Al Jazeera film crew were harassed while reporting on the burning of four community ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March. The destroyed vehicles belonged to the Jewish emergency volunteer service, Hatzola.

The authorities are treating the ambulance attack as an antisemitic hate crime.

Declassified UK have now revealed that the vocal member of the angry mob filmed haranguing the film crew is none other than Special Constable David Soffer.

🚨SCOOP: Man filmed in Al Jazeera ‘intimidation’ mob is a serving Metropolitan Police officer@declassifiedUK has identified him as Special Constable David Soffer.

He was filmed calling a Palestinian journalist a “dog” and telling him to “go back to Qatar”. pic.twitter.com/RQeiFb52a8

— Martin Williams (@martinrw) March 26, 2026

Declassified reported that:

David Soffer – who also runs a reputation management firm according to records filed at Companies House – is seen making his way to the centre of the mob and insulting the cameraman.

A prolific user of X/Twitter, Soffer has publicly expressed his support for Israel.

Advertisement

The outlet said Soffer’s online footprint also suggests support for British fascist Tommy Robinson:

In 2024, the far-right activist Tommy Robinson posted an image on Twitter saying “Fuck Palestine”, adding: “The shithole is full of inbred Islamist parasites and terrorists.”

Soffer responded, saying that Robinson “is telling the truth” and that Israel will “justly finish” the war in Gaza.

Soffer verbally abuses the journalists in the footage. He calls one Palestinian journalist a “dog” and a “donkey” in Arabic and says “Go back to Qatar.”

The Met Police told Declassified UK:

We are aware that an off duty serving Met officer was involved in the altercation. The matter has been referred to the Department of Professional Standards for assessment.

Tommy fanboy cop

Journalist Matt Kennard said it’s easy to imagine the reaction if the roles were flipped:

Imagine if a Muslim off-duty police officer called a Jewish Chronicle reporter a “dog” and told them to “go back to Tel Aviv”

Would be front-page of every major newspaper. Starmer would have to make a statement. Let’s see if it’s even covered at all when it’s this way round… https://t.co/fCv7K4RpNd

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) March 26, 2026

Other users have pointed to the Met police constable’s past appearances on white supremacist channel, GB News, which he also proudly advertises on his LinkedIn.

Seems like he’s also appeared on GB news pic.twitter.com/jCsaNjyi27

— mc (@mc8119551355572) March 26, 2026

The Met previously said of the altercation:

We’re aware of the footage showing the verbal altercation between local residents and journalists.

Freedom of the press is important and journalists must be able to do their job without being subject to intimidation or harassment.

Advertisement

Officers did intervene but we recognise that there was an extended period where the journalists were put in a difficult situation which led them to leave the area. Officers on duty in the area have been asked to be alert to any similar altercations in the coming days.

As the Canary wrote on 24 March, the British establishment quickly weaponised the ambulance attack against British Muslims—despite there being no evidence at the time of who carried it out:

With depressing predictability, politicians are using the antisemitic Golders Green arson as an excuse to roll out Islamophobic rhetoric. Never mind the fact that we have no idea who carried out the attack – the knee-jerk bigotry is already in full swing.

Now we know one of the most abusive members of the 23 March mob was a Tommy Robinson-supporting serving cop. The Met need to come down like a ton of bricks. We don’t hold our breath though.

Featured image via GB News, YouTube Channel