Quick recap on the scandal

More than 700 people running small local post offices received criminal convictions between 1999 and 2006. Faulty accounting software made it appear that money had gone missing from their branches.

The Horizon IT system developed by the Japanese technology giant Fujitsu caused this. The Post Office installed the software in the late 90s, but flaws in its programming showed up deficits in branch accounts.

Postal service executives, refusing to acknowledge problems with the software, forced their workers to repay the shortfalls. Some were imprisoned or left out of pocket, while others failed to find other jobs and even lost their homes. However, in December 2019 a High Court judge concluded that the system contained a number of “bugs, errors, and defects”.

The UK government announced in September 2023 that every postmaster convicted would receive a payout of hundreds of thousands of pounds. This was the bare minimum for the damage caused.

As of 2026, more than 600 postmasters have seen their convictions overturned, and over £320m has been paid out in compensation. However, the DWP has still to review its departmental role in some 100 convictions.

A viral petition and the CWU sum up the corrupt cronyism that ‘Mr Bates vs the Post Office’ reignited public awareness of

British police accused of fabricating evidence with AI

Burnham hands cruel ex-DWP Minister the keys to No. 10

DWP boss McFadden making vague pronouncements about ‘helping people into work’ again

Featured image via the Canary

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

Four of the eleven unions officially affiliated with the Labour Party have announced that they will boycott the Labour Women’s Conference this year. Unison, Aslef, Usdaw, and the Musicians’ Union cited the party’s decision to ban trans women from attending the event.

The news follows Labour’s cancellation of the 2025 women’s conference after the Supreme Court’s ruling that ‘woman’ refers to sex-assigned-at-birth under the Equality Act 2010.

‘Compliance with the law’

In December, the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) then took a vote to formally exclude trans women from proceedings at the women’s conference.

Note, particularly, that the trans ban at the conference doesn’t apply only to the creation of ‘all women shortlists’, where the Equality Act might be most clearly applicable. Labour have ruled that trans women won’t be allowed in the main conference hall itself, quite literally relegating trans women to the fringe.

A party spokesperson claimed that:

This reflects our commitment to addressing the under-representation of women in the Party and compliance with the law.

Violating ‘policy on trans inclusion’

However, the High Court has since ruled that the law doesn’t require even ‘single-sex’ spaces like bathrooms to exclude trans women. In this light, Labour’s argument that it must exclude trans people from even entering the conference hall seems laughable at best.

Conversely, if the party’s intention is to generate an artificially transphobic consensus from its women’s conference, the blanket ban becomes a lot more understandable.

In reaction to the discriminatory decision, the boycotting unions stated that their attendance would violate their policies of trans inclusion. A Unison spokesperson said:

The union’s decided against sending a delegation to Labour women’s conference this year.

This is because the party’s restrictions on access run counter to UNISON’s policy on trans equality.

Likewise, the Metro quoted a representative of shop worker’s union Usdaw explaining that:

 The union’s decided against sending a delegation to Labour women’s conference this year.

This is because the party has excluded trans women, which runs counter to Usdaw’s policy on trans equality.

The Musician’s union simply stated that it has a “long-standing policy of trans inclusion”.

‘No real justification’

Whilst a less actively transphobic Labour Party might be embarrassed by its union backers criticising its nakedly discriminatory policy, we’re long past that point. However, the unions are also some of Labour’s most significant financial backers, which gives their dissent more weight.

Unison is Labour’s second largest union donor, contributing nearly £26m to the party since 2010. Usdaw gave just over £23m in the same period, making it the fourth-largest donor.

Meanwhile, trans-positive organisations have also raised their voices against the Labour policy. Grassroots group Labour for Trans Rights stated that:

For decades, trans women members have had a home in Labour’s structures, and it’s not acceptable that they’re being so blatantly excluded.

The trade union movement – including the Labour-affiliated unions – have been incredible allies to the trans community.

Advertisement

Likewise, Trans+ Solidarity Alliance director Alexandra Parmar-Yee said:

Clearly, there’s no real justification for banning trans women from a conference; this is just one example of a broken legal framework for trans equality.

For trans people, access to everyday public life is becoming harder and less safe – while organisations like businesses, charities and the NHS are getting caught in the crossfire of endless legal cases.

Andy Burnham can fix this, putting this issue to bed with a fair and workable approach, but if he doesn’t act this will end up being Labour’s legacy on LGBTQ+ rights for generations to come.

Feature image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) has opened sanctioning proceedings against la Directa. This follows it publishing investigations into undercover police officers within social and pro-independence movements.

This was announced on Wednesday at a press conference at the Barcelona Press Association by the outlet, together with Irídia – Centre for the Defence of Human Rights and the Ramon Barnils Group of Journalists.

The action stems from a complaint filed by four of the police officers who, between 2020 and 2023, infiltrated social and political movements in Catalonia and the Valencian Country without judicial authorisation.

The complaints were initially dismissed, but the AEPD’s presidency subsequently reopened the case and has now launched the sanctioning proceedings.

La Directa claims public interest

La Directa maintains that its investigations exposing undercover police officers within social movements constitute a legitimate exercise of the right to communicate and receive truthful information (freedom of information), and reflect the essential democratic role of the media as watchdog of public authorities, particularly when investigating covert police operations that affect fundamental rights.

Through these investigations, la Directa exposed an operation run by the Spanish Police’s General Information Commissioner’s Office, which introduced at least four agents under false identities into social and pro-independence movements.

These cases have had major political, social and legal repercussions. Indeed, for the first time, the Spanish government acknowledged that these infiltrations into social movements were carried out under the police formula of the “intelligence agent”. This is a role that operates without judicial authorisation and has no recognition within the Spanish legal framework. This is a thesis it has reiterated in responses to parliamentary questions and before the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Despite this, the AEPD’s ruling disregards it and refers to the officers as if they were undercover agents, a category that does have legal grounding and judicial oversight. It even treats the fictitious first and last names the officers used during the infiltration as personal data requiring protection.

The AEPD’s ruling accuses la Directa of disseminating “personal and professional information” about the infiltrated officers “that allows for their identification,” despite the fact that the outlet carried out a rigorous balancing exercise between the right to information and the protection of personal data: it partially concealed their faces and published only the initials of their real first and last names.

‘Gagging effect’ of ruling

Despite these precautions, the ruling also orders the removal of part of the published information and seriously undermines the investigation as a whole, as well as the right to the free exercise of journalism.

Sònia Olivella Saludes, strategic litigation coordinator at Irídia – Centre for the Defence of Human Rights, believes the proceedings:

generate a serious intimidating and gagging effect on investigative journalism.

The organisation, which filed the first criminal complaint against a state police infiltration operation targeting social movements, will submit objections against the proposed sanction and demand that the proceedings be dropped, on the grounds that la Directa struck an appropriate balance between the officers’ right to data protection and the right to information.

Olivella states that the outlet took the necessary precautions to prevent the officers’ direct identification. At the same time, she considers the published information essential to understanding the scope and significance of the infiltration operation. She says:

Spain infiltrated police officers into social movements, resulting in serious human rights violations. Not only has it denied the facts and obstructed victims’ access to justice, but now the outlet that exposed it is being criminalised.

Jesús Rodríguez, a journalist at la Directa, stresses that the public relevance of the information “is indisputable” and notes that uncovering the infiltrations led to the creation of a commission of inquiry in the Catalan Parliament and prompted numerous opposition initiatives and parliamentary questions in the Spanish Congress of Deputies.

In addition, the cases have been covered by Catalan, Spanish and international media outlets, including the Guardian and la Repubblica.

Comparison to the UK

The AEPD’s action stands in stark contrast to the response of public institutions in similar cases in the UK. After it was revealed that undercover officers had maintained intimate relationships with activists under false identities, and only thanks to sustained popular, political and media pressure from social movements, social organisations and news outlets, both the police forces and the UK government took responsibility, apologised to the victims and paid them compensation.

Moreover, in that case, the identities and photographs of the undercover officers were published freely by the media and remain publicly accessible, without this leading to any kind of sanction against the outlets that reported on the facts.

In the Spanish state, by contrast, cases of undercover policing continue to go without effective investigation or any clarification of accountability.

The threat of a financial penalty and the removal of content may discourage the media from publishing relevant information about the actions of public authorities. It therefore has an effect comparable to what are known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), lawsuits designed to silence and censor.

La Directa case could set precedent

These proceedings could set a highly dangerous precedent for all media outlets and professionals who investigate police abuses or other matters uncomfortable for institutions. Elisabet Borreda, co-chair of the Ramon Barnils Group of Journalists says:

It is not la Directa that has violated personal data here, it is Spain, and we will not allow data protection to be used as a weapon against those who investigate it. When the same journalist or outlet accumulates multiple unfounded lawsuits and complaints, we are no longer talking about isolated cases: we are talking about a pattern of attrition, a clear case of SLAPP.

To face the proceedings, which threaten the viability of the journalistic cooperative, la Directa is launching a support campaign. A statement already backed by dozens of journalists and professional, social and human rights organisations, both domestic and international, states:

Defending la Directa means defending society’s right to know how public authorities act. We cannot allow those who investigate to be sanctioned while those who infiltrate are protected.

Among the first signatories are the various movements affected by police infiltration and organisations such as Òmnium Cultural, Alerta Solidària, the Journalists’ Union of Catalonia / Union of Communication Professionals (SPC) and Red Jurídica, along with dozens of media outlets and journalists.

Organisations from the UK, such as State Watch and the Police Spies Out of Lives movement, among others, are also calling for the sanctioning proceedings against la Directa to be dropped and for the Spanish government to introduce the legislative changes needed to ensure data protection rules cannot be used to gag and censor the media.

Rodríguez notes:

The AEPD’s sanction leads us to question the democratic quality of Spanish institutions. The names, surnames and photographs of officers who infiltrated social movements in the UK can be freely published by any media outlet, including la Directa, yet we are being ordered to censor all data relating to the undercover officers in the Spanish state, despite the undeniable news value of these cases.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

On Wednesday 27 July, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage posted the following to Twitter/X:

This is what Zack Polanski has just posted on his instagram.

If I was to post anything as inciteful then I would expect to be arrested, and so should Polanski. pic.twitter.com/u1s25FQ38U

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) July 27, 2026

Advertisement

The image in question shows a guillotine next to the message “We’re only making plans for Nigel”. And Farage is certainly correct to think he would have attracted criticism if he’d published something similar.

Farage is less correct to suggest Polanski ‘posted’ the image, but we do agree the Greens leader was correct to apologise. We also agree with those who pointed out that some of the objections from Reform are a bit rich given the behaviour they tolerate from their own politicians.

We don’t condone this either

As the BBC reported, Reform UK has now reported Polanski to the police. The Met Police have issued the following statement:

We received a third-party report relating to an image shared on social media. We take reports of this nature extremely seriously, and officers are conducting enquiries into the matter.

To make something abundantly clear, we don’t condone the guillotine image, nor indeed any call for violence. While ordinary crime may be down compared to the end of the last century, acts of terror and political violence are becoming unfortunately common (not to mention acts of state violence which are perpetrated by the police and other agents of the government). Online culture no doubt feeds into this; as does the increased disparity people now experience. These issues need solving holistically if we’re going to get off the dark path we’re walking down.

Polanski and the Green Party have made their feelings clear too, with a spokesperson stating:

Zack condemns the image on the T-shirt. He was tagged in a post with 20 images and clicked accept without realising there was more to it than he had seen.

The T-shirt is clearly in poor taste, especially at a time of heightened fears for the security of public figures, having experienced multiple threats himself.

He and the Green Party call on everyone involved in public discourse to show kindness and not encourage more division.

Advertisement

Some people have described the t-shirt as ‘satirical’. The image pictured is obviously a reference to the French Revolution – the period when the downtrodden people of France rose up to execute the decadent aristocrats – and modern references to the ‘guillotine’ are a nod to the growing wealth disparity we’ve seen in recent decades (and to what many predict will be the inevitable outcome of this unchecked greed). There is a difference between vaguely memeing about guillotines online, though, and directly linking an execution device to a politician. And this is true even when the politician in question has said things like the following:

Welcome to freedom, Lucy Connolly.

You are now a symbol of Keir Starmer’s authoritarian, broken, two-tier Britain. https://t.co/pjsg9DLI7W

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) August 21, 2025

Advertisement

For reference, Connolly tweeted this, which led to her eventual imprisonment:

Potentially, Farage and his allies will take this moment to reconsider the support they’ve given Connolly. That or they’ll drop their calls for the t-shirt man to face arrest. You’d assume it has to be one or the other, but we’ll see.

So Polanski accepts a collab on a picture and the world goes wild

Meanwhile, Farage literally inciting riots only a few months ago and posts shit like this

See the issue here? pic.twitter.com/DZgMacL98j

— Mr AntifaBot – AKA The Intolerant Left (@_Wrevolution_) July 28, 2026

“To be clear”

The offending image was posted by former Canary photographer and contributor Barold. Barold said the following in response to the controversy:

To be clear, [Zack Polanski] did not in any way post this photo. I took this photo of someone in a satirical tshirt and I posted it as part of a run of photos which were offered for collaboration. This wasn’t intended to offend anyone and it’s clearly not intended as a serious…

Threat to anyone’s safety whatsoever. The idea that people would be making serious threats or incitement to violence by using a picture of guillotine is absurd, and whilst I acknowledge the very real threat to MPs safety let’s be real here, the call for political violence…

Is not something that is being normalised by left wing political figures or individuals. Individuals from the far right of British politics have normalised the idea of political violence over the years – the last thing Jo Cox heard before her murder was “Britain First”….

There were numerous studies after her murder that showed how many people on the right were making jokes and memes about what happened. This performative outrage is just that, and if people want to come and take it out on someone then take it out on the person who took the…

Advertisement

Picture, and who then posted it. Don’t use the short sighted actions of a freelance Photojournalist called fucking Barold as an excuse to go after [Zack Polanski] because you don’t like his politics. Pretending that this is any sort of threat is insulting to the memory of people…

Like Jo Cox, and like Anne Widdicombe and the many many people every year who are victims of real crime, and real political violence every year. I personally have been run out of protest areas while doing my job by a mob of right wing fascists in the last few months…

During the protest at Edgeware recently I was physically threatened by individuals wearing transparent earpieces while doing my job. There is the real and genuine threat of political violence all around us, being heightened by the divisive and dangerous politics that are being…

Peddled by reactionary individuals who sit in TV studios and write in columns in the press every day – taking advantage of this issue is disingenuous and far more dangerous than that t-shirt will ever be.

Advertisement

My deepest apologies to [Zack Polanski] – this is not his fault.

Canary contributor Cameron Baillie posted a video showing a similar encounter to that which was described by Barold:

Here is a hired bruiser for Reform UK in Makerfield, who threatened me, a journalist and colleague of Barold.

He said to me off camera that things would “end very badly” for me if I continued to ask their MPs questions.

Advertisement

Thicko all but admitted he said it when I challenged him… https://t.co/C4vcmCby9U pic.twitter.com/YW0wlD7Hlw

— C.J.Mc. Baillie (@cjmbaillie) July 28, 2026

Wider response to Reform

Among those who responded to the controversy was Aaron Bastani of Novara, who said the following in response to Barold’s tweet:

Violence against politicians, and political figures, is an incredibly real prospect. From councillors and MPs to just activists. Amping that up in no way helps left wing politics.

I appreciate this is a joke, but the context means it’s not a laughing matter. A Reform figure was literally killed a few weeks ago.

Politically, though, Reform run risk of looking irrelevant. It’s week 2 of Burnham admin, and he’s really going for it.

Reform, meanwhile, are contesting a by election against a guy dressed as a bin, and calling for Zack Polanski to be arrested.

Reform politicians are directly calling for Polanski’s arrest too, including Zia Yusuf:

Zack Polanski has posted to his 713k Instagram followers a photo of a man in a T-shirt calling for the beheading of Nigel Farage.

To do this just 2 weeks after our friend Ann was murdered is staggering.

Polanski is inciting murder.

It must be treated as such by the police. pic.twitter.com/mkLvxESf21

Advertisement

— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) July 27, 2026

If Zack Polanski is not in police custody by this time tomorrow, the Police will have declared open season on Members of Parliament.

— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) July 27, 2026

Advertisement

As noted at the top, this is all very shaky ground for Reform. In the past few months alone, we’ve reported on the following in relation to Reform politicians:

• Farage threatens that white riots in Southampton are ‘just the beginning’.
• Reform councillor reposts that Labour MP ‘should be shot’.
• Reform candidate suggests ‘melting Nigerians’ to fill potholes.
• Calls for Reform candidate who praised rape of Sikh women to face suspension.
• Reform welcomes ‘shoot the p*kis’ scandal ex-Tory.

Of these, only one has been removed from the party:

• Nigel Farage remains the leader of Reform UK.
• Simon Evans – the Reform councillor who posted a meme calling for Labour MP Natalie Fleet to be shot – remains the deputy leader of Lancashire County Council.
• Glenn Gibbins – the man who joked about ‘melting Nigerians’ – remains a Reform councillor.
• Stuart Prior – the man who praised rapists – was expelled from the party.
• Derek Bullock – the man who called for Pakistani people to be shot – remains a Reform councillor.

We’re not highlighting this to justify the guillotine t-shirt; we’re highlighting it to note that Reform needs to get its own house in order. And as Canary writer Maddison Wheeldon said in response to a post about Simon Evans:

I get the point, but if we're going to attempt to legitimise this from the left by holding up the violent rhetoric of the far right, then only violence can ensue and the higher ground is lost entirely.

Violence is never funny – saying something is satirical doesnt make it okay https://t.co/kpSrEqMej5

Advertisement

— Maddison Wheeldon (@MaddisonW92) July 28, 2026

Reform need to get their own house in order

Incidents like this are best seen as opportunities for those involved to reflect and grow. For Zack Polanski and his team, it’s an opportunity to reflect on what they share on social media. For the t-shirt man, it’s an opportunity to ask if the message he’s broadcasting is being received as he expects. And for Reform UK, it’s an opportunity get their own house in order when it comes to violent and murderous rhetoric.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Floundering Nigel Farage has set the police on Green leader Zack Polanski for accepting an Instagram collaboration invite on an Instagram post. One of some twenty images in the post showed a protester wearing a t-shirt showing a guillotine with the wording “We’re only making plans for Nigel”. Obvious political satire, but Farage and the right-wing media are clutching their pearls over the supposed death threat.

Hypocrite Farage

But Farage has his own form. Farage has farcically claimed to be the most threatened UK politician – despite the actual murder of several MPs. But he also refused to condemn a senior Reform figure who shared a call for Bolsover Labour MP Natalie Fleet to “be shot”:

Accepting the collaboration was an avoidable error by Polanski, but nothing like sharing and endorsing an actual death threat. Farage wouldn’t condemn a far more explicit, serious and intentional one – but he’s desperately clinging to Polanski’s error, like a drowning man to a lifebelt, to try to revive the dead horse of his own expired political credibility.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

A new CIA assessment has exposed how Israel is scrabbling to entrench permanent US military backing. The settler-colonial state is terrified that future administrations will cut support amid plummeting public support.

They’re right to worry. Israel’s brazenly genocidal assault on the Palestinians has seen traditionally solid US support for the ethno-state plunge.

“Israel-first”

Journalist Aida Chavez, formerly of the Nation and the Intercept, wrote on her Class and Empire Substack:

Israeli officials believe the political fight over Israel in the United States is becoming harder to win, and that the era of indefinitely securing billions of dollars in annual military aid is coming to an end, according to the assessment, which was described to Capital & Empire by several U.S. officials.

Chavez said:

Instead of relying on direct U.S. military aid – an increasingly visible and politically contentious form of support – Israel is racing to embed itself more deeply in America’s military, intelligence, and national security apparatus in ways designed to outlast future administrations.

Enter a new CIA assessment on Israel’s plans…

Chavez said the report:

describes discussions about expanding intelligence cooperation and the possibility of hosting a permanent U.S. military base on Israeli territory.

She described how Israeli officials have been “cultivating”:

prominent figures in the American technology sector to build long-term political and financial support for the strategy.

The individuals are not identified.

Last week, Chavez wrote, US Congress “quietly approved”:

Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act, establishing a permanent U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative within the Pentagon.

This:

establishes a Pentagon executive agent charged with coordinating bilateral defense research, development, industrial cooperation, and technology integration.

Partisan support for neocolonialism

Both Democrats and Republicans have been organising the plan, the true scope of which has been poorly reported in legacy media.

Chavez wrote:

Earlier this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu floated phasing out direct U.S. military aid altogether. Most mainstream news coverage framed the proposed shift as a reflection of Israel’s growing economic and military strength, or self-sufficiency.

However, the assessment indicates that the CIA “views the strategy differently”:

The spy agency believes that Israel is seeking to insulate the U.S.-Israel alliance from America’s changing political landscape by replacing highly visible foreign aid with deeper, longer-lasting forms of military and industrial integration.

The kinship between the two violent settler-colonial states is well documented. But this new proposal risks entrenching virtually permanent military support between the imperial power and Israel — it’s brutal policeman in Middle Eastern. Unpicking those obligations may be impossible if the new deal comes to pass. For that reason and others it must be vehemently opposed.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Palantir is an American company which makes spy and military tech. Some of this technology has been used by Israel to carry out its genocide. And as such, it’s no wonder a significant portion of the population don’t want the UK to have anything to do with the company.

How are Palantir responding to this, you ask? Currently by labelling the majority of Britons a “noisy minority”:

65% of the British public want the NHS to drop its contract with Palantir.

They try to paint us an a minority – when it is Palantir who are swimming against the tide of public opinion. https://t.co/kzBIR4Chk3

Advertisement

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) July 29, 2026

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, yes, Louis Mosley is the grandson of the notorious British fascist Sir Oswald Mosley, sixth baronet. While we don’t think you should blame individuals for the sins of their fathers, we do believe in class politics, and this is a clear example of how such politics can replicate and mutate over successive generations.

“Noisy minority” (Palantir claims)

In the interview above, Palantir CEO Mosley said:

There is a lot of noise about us. It does come from, I would say, a minority. It’s a specific end of the political spectrum… It’s a noisy minority. It’s people like Zach Polanski. They have a big issue with the way in which our software is used thousands of miles away in other countries, specifically America and Israel.

We’re not sure that the genocide being “thousands of miles away” does anything to negate the horror of the genocide, honestly. Mosley continued:

My view, and by the way, I’m very happy to debate that. I will defend it. But when it comes to the NHS, my view is what matters is” can the NHS control the data when it’s using Palantir? Is patient data safe if it’s using Palantir? And secondly, are the Palantir tools working? The answer to both those questions is a categorical yes.

Okay, so our problems are:

• Will giving Palantir contracts inevitably mean more money for a company which is happy to support a genocide?
• Could anyone possibly trust the weasel words of such a company?

The answer to the first question is a categorical yes: the answer to the second is a categorical no.

Mosley went into more detail about how NHS patient data is supposedly safe, but this does nothing to address the issues above. The more that support for Israel drops, the more people will want Palantir gone too. And the same will be true for all the politicians who inflicted Palantir upon us:

NEW | Support for Palestine in Britain has risen to its highest-ever level, with Greens most supportive.

Palestine – 37% (+7)
Israel – 15% (-2)

The % of Green voters who back Israel is… 0%

Via @YouGov, 29-30 Jul (+/- vs 23 Jun) pic.twitter.com/epOVw0u2ut

— Stats for Lefties (@LeftieStats) August 8, 2025

History repeats itself

Oswald Mosley wanted to repress a targeted minority as his friend Adolf Hitler did; Louis Mosley and his company repress a different targeted minority by selling Benjamin Netanyahu tech solutions. Same shit, different era.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Data centres are getting a bad reputation for how much energy and water they use (something particularly problematic for AI data centres). The reputation these data centres have will likely only get worse too, because Trump is seemingly giving them permission to create acid rain:

The Trump administration has exempted data centers from acid rain regulations, removing caps on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. pic.twitter.com/2rPzFptVwy

— FactPost (@factpostnews) July 29, 2026

When it rains

Acid rain was a commonly discussed problem in the late 20th century. It’s spoken about less now because scientists were successful at identifying the problem and formulating a solution. As the BBC reported in 2019:

At its worst, acid rain stripped forests bare in Europe, wiped lakes clear of life in parts of Canada and the US, and harmed human health and crops in China where the problem persists. Looking back today, there is little argument that the cause was sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emitted by fossil fuel combustion by cars and industrial facilities like smelters and coal-burning utilities. When combined with water and oxygen in the atmosphere, these air pollutants chemically transform into sulphuric and nitric acid. Acidic droplets in clouds then fall as rain, snow or hail.

The BBC concluded:

In the fight Hurley helped to lead against acid rain, this meant talking to coal workers at sportsmen’s shows, engaging them in conversations about clean water for fishing salmon, and going for walks in war cemeteries where acidity was ruining the limestone of gravestones.

Though aspects of its legacy remain, solutions to the acid rain problem moved forward, in North America at least, because it became a non-partisan issue. Hurley reflects that “a broad spectrum of people came to believe that it was important to protect natural resources – our forests, our northern lakes and the fish they contain – resources that belong to everyone”.

The problem is that it’s pretty much impossible to have a ‘non-partisan’ issue today. If rich people can profit, legions of right-wing lobbyists and political operators will find a way of making it partisan. And this is why countries are now backsliding on issues we’d previously solved.

Trump loosens restrictions

In an announcement posted on 27 July, the United States Environmental Protection Agency said:

This month, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued guidance clarifying that the Clean Air Act (CAA) Acid Rain Program (ARP) does not apply to power generation facilities that are not connected to a public electricity grid, commonly referred to as “islanded” power generation facilities. The guidance expands opportunities for companies to develop and operate islanded power generation facilities for data centers.

For clarity, some of these data centres use so much electricity that they require their own power generation facilities. Now, said facilities will be able to get away with producing the sort of pollution that leads to acid rain — no thanks to Trump.

The move from the Trump regime will be challenged, as environmental attorney Mike Levin has said:

EPA is trying to create this exemption while avoiding Congress. But agencies cannot rewrite statutes by memo. If Congress intended to exempt privately dedicated power plants from the Acid Rain Program, we would have written legislation to do so. We most certainly have not.

EPA is attempting to narrow a law Congress enacted without Congress’s approval. Courts should reject it, and Congress should make clear that clean air protections apply based on pollution, not on who buys the electricity.

Advertisement

Our kids deserve clean air more than data centers deserve a special loophole.

Getting worse

It’s important to note that there’s already a considerable backlash to data centres, with backlash in communities all over the country:

Despite the efforts of Trump and others, the reaction to data centres is actually non-partisan too — or it is right now, anyway.

Over time, lobbyists may convince people that these dirty, water-draining abominations are actually good for them. Alternatively, the AI industry could completely collapse in on itself, leaving many of these tech warehouses as empty blights on the land.

Featured image via the Canary

By Willem Moore

Source link

Irish anti-genocide activists have boldly occupied the Department of Sport’s headquarters in Dublin. The campaigners did so in opposition to the Football Association of Ireland’s (FAI) disgraceful decision to proceed with fixtures against apartheid ‘Israel’, the illegitimate land theft project occupying historic Palestine.

In a statement, League of Ireland Fans for Palestine, a key player in the Stop The Game campaign, said:

[The action] is part of a continuing protest which will intensify until these two shameful fixtures have been stopped.

The Government has placed pressure on the FAI, who are also culpable, to fulfil these fixtures. Taoiseach Micheal Martin was one of the first to demand that the FAI play these games. Ireland is a part of the International Criminal Court and as such should not be engaging in sportswashing genocide. We are failing in our moral, humanitarian and legal obligations as a country in playing these games.

Garda threatens 12 months in jail for peaceful pro-Palestine protest

In footage seen by the Canary, a Garda inspector tells protestors they are committing criminal trespass, on the absurd basis the peaceful protest was “putting people in fear”. Trespass is ordinarily a civil matter in which the police do not intervene. One quick-witted activist replies:

I’m in fear, I’ve got 20 guards stood around me.

The inspector goes on to threaten those present with a ridiculous €1000 fine and 12 months imprisonment, alongside punishment for “failure to comply with a direction”. He suggests the latter could warrant a six month prison term and a €500 penalty. Garda goons eventually manhandled the protestors from the premises.

The Stop The Game effort began with awareness raising and less bold, conventional protests. However, it has escalated its efforts as the Irish government and FAI have doubled-down on proceeding with the potentially illegal Nations League games.

Protesters have disrupted an Ireland vs Qatar match with tennis balls, temporarily halting play. They have ensured FAI officials have to face the consequences of their despicable conniving, by confronting FAI president Paul Cooke as he left a meeting in which the governing body voted to fulfil the matches. They have even got on top of the FAI HQ, saying they:

… will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to ensure no sport with gen0cidal baby-slaughterers.

Irish state intervenes in sport when it’s convenient

The activists have now taken their efforts to the government department that pumps millions of euros into FAI coffers. RTÉ quote a Department of Sport spokeswoman who said:

It is important to note that National Governing Bodies of sport, such as the FAI, are independent, autonomous bodies responsible for the governance of their own sports, including the organisation of sporting fixtures, whether in domestic or international competitions.

The Government and Sport Ireland have no role in the organisation of such fixtures.

In reality the government has previously been happy to intervene when it suited the state to do so. Most relevantly, Bertie Ahern’s government intervened in 1999 to deny entry visas for players from what was then Yugoslavia, because of atrocities being carried out by the nation’s government.

That was a rather easier decision politically, knowing the US hegemon and most Western powers backed the destruction of Slobodan Milošević’s regime. The state also intervened in FAI affairs during a governance crisis at the sporting body in 2019.

Yet now Micheál Martin’s Zionist mob refuses to intervene in the most morally straightforward case imaginable – whether to play a football match against the world’s most lawless entity, so-called ‘Israel’.

Undeterred, the Stop the Game heroes will host a media event on Thursday July 30 to rally an already supportive public further around their efforts. Present will be Margaret Connolly, sister of Irish president Catherine. Margaret was among those on board the Global Sumud Flotilla earlier this year. Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) kidnapped, raped and tortured the activists, and prevented them from reaching Gaza.

Joining Connolly will be former Ireland rugby and British and Irish Lions scrum half John Robbie. Stop the Game say in 1981 Robbie:

…toured apartheid South Africa with the Ireland rugby team, a decision he deeply regrets.

He is expected to:

…directly address the Irish football team as someone who knows what it is like to take the field against his conscience.

For now it is in the hands of the craven FAI and the criminal US bootlicker Micheál Martin to cease this historic humiliation. Ultimately, however, it may fall to the players to ensure they don’t follow John Robbie, and be haunted for the rest of their lives by a decision to sportwash genocide.

Featured image via the Canary

By Robert Freeman

Source link

Americans are largely tolerant of scandals among politicians. But nobody is more willing to stick by an embattled candidate than a MAGA voter.

The POLITICO Poll finds President Donald Trump’s MAGA supporters are the most loyal of any group of voters — with majorities saying they would stick by GOP candidates confronted with an array of scandals, from a DUI conviction or accepting lobbyist gifts to more serious accusations including domestic violence, sexual assault and antisemitic social media posts.

Two-thirds of self-identified MAGA Trump voters say they would continue supporting a GOP candidate accused of sexual assault — 13 percentage points higher than the share of Trump 2024 voters writ large, which include those who do not identify as MAGA. By comparison, 40 percent of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 would continue backing a Democratic candidate accused of sexual assault.

Seventy-two percent of MAGA Trump voters say they would stick with a GOP candidate accused of domestic violence, more than 10 percentage points higher than the overall share of Trump 2024 voters who would back a GOP candidate (61 percent). Thirty-nine percent of Harris voters say they’d stick with a Democrat accused of domestic violence.

Scandal in American politics is not new, but the poll results help underscore how Trump has helped reshape partisan loyalty. Across every hypothetical scandal tested, MAGA Trump voters were more loyal than the rest of the electorate.

The president has displayed a remarkable ability to withstand controversy himself, from the Access Hollywood tape to his four criminal indictments, and a willingness to back other MAGA-aligned candidates, boosting them to victory even if they have past controversies. Three of four of Trump’s criminal cases were thrown out or dropped once he returned to the White House, while the fourth, his conviction in the Manhattan hush money case, is under appeal.

That’s true in some of the most pivotal races of the 2026 midterm cycle, which has been defined by scandal on both sides of the aisle: Democrats stood by Graham Platner in Maine’s Senate race throughout a series of scandals until abandoning him following a sexual assault allegation, which he denies. The GOP has rallied behind embattled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Republican voters in Arizona also recently selected former Arizona sheriff Mark Lamb as their nominee in a House race amid allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of power. Lamb has denied the allegations.

In both cases, Trump was a decisive factor propelling them across the finish line.

“Scandal doesn’t mean what it did 15 years ago. The rules have changed, and Republican voters know it,” said longtime Republican strategist Ford O’Connell. “Republicans, particularly MAGA voters, have learned that Queensberry rules don’t win in modern politics. Today it’s a full-contact fight, more UFC than civics class, and anything goes.”

Americans on both sides are willing to tolerate scandals — up to a point.

The POLITICO Poll, conducted by independent U.K.-based polling firm Public First, tested a dozen hypothetical scandals and found near-majorities of voters across the political spectrum would stand by candidates with DUI convictions or accused of using tax loopholes, concealing a terminal illness or exaggerating their military service.

None of the hypothetical scandals caused MAGA voters to abandon a GOP candidate, with majorities across every scenario tested saying they would stick with the candidate, including through accusations of domestic violence or sexual assault. Trump’s 2024 voting coalition as a whole was also generally more likely to continue voting for the GOP candidate, even after a scandal, with the exception of when a candidate made antisemitic comments.

Harris 2024 voters, however, drew a line. Facing some scandals, such as a Democratic candidate accepting gifts from lobbyists or accused of domestic violence or sexual assault, more Harris voters would either stay home or vote Republican than stick with their party’s nominee.

That dynamic has played out on the campaign trail. In Maine, Platner weathered months of controversy, including over past Reddit posts and a tattoo that resembled a Nazi symbol, and only dropped out of the race after POLITICO’s report that a woman said he forced her to have sex with him, an allegation he denies.

“In hindsight, knowing what we know now, the Reddit posts alone probably should have been enough …. The tattoo should have been enough. The initial New York Times story on troubling behavior should have been enough,” former top Platner adviser Morris Katz recently told the New York Times.

The survey also found that principled opposition to scandal shifts when voters face practical realities.

To test those considerations, the survey presented respondents with candidates from different parties — and found a significant partisan gap. Democrats were slightly more willing to say that Republicans should drop out than Democratic candidates should, to the tune of about a five-point difference. But across nearly all scenarios, Republican voters were significantly more likely to say the Democrat should drop out over the same scandal than the Republican should.

For example, 71 percent of Republicans said a Democratic candidate accused of sexual assault should drop out of the race. Asked the same question about a Republican candidate, that fell to 52 percent.

“For most voters, scandal is one ingredient among many in a partisan calculation, it is no longer a standalone verdict,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston who has researched political scandal.

Source link