The University of York’s Student Union has officially ratified the Restore Britain Society, despite mass protest from the students themselves. The board of trustees pushed the decision through after consultation with solicitors, claiming legal frameworks have forced their hand. But students are fucking furious.

Corporate bullshit vs student safety

In an official statement on Instagram, York SU claims it must consider every application, regardless of politics. The trust board argues that refusing lawful views exposes the charity to serious risk. Yet they’re willing to ratify a group, knowing that they were holding events like this on campus…

So, they’d rather put students at risk, rather than themselves? I mean, nothing says keeping students safe like ratifying a group that says “let’s get foreigners out” whilst advertising an event with handcuffs and a deportation ban on Instagram…

The SU are weaponizing the fact that the national Restore Britain party holds just one parliamentary seat under Rupert Lowe. Lowe, may I add, who was elected under the Reform party, not his own new fascist pet-project.

But the reality on the ground shreds this clinical, defensive administrative bullshit. This Instagram post alone should be enough to prove the Restore Britain fledglings are about anything but regular politics. They’re fucking fascist.

And at a time when swastikas are allegedly being graffitied on the campus, this is not the time to be encouraging it. Yes, the society deleted the posts, but that’s not the point. 28% of the students at York University are international students, so what kind of message does this give to them? It screams that the SU don’t give a shit about them, that they’re willing to allow a fascist group that hates them to exist in the space in which these students live and learn.

Infrastructure failure

York SU admits that the creation of the Restore Britain Society leaves students feeling unsafe, yet they only offer these young people standard welfare portals and report tools. They also declared that ratification is subject to mandatory equality, diversity and inclusion training. That made me laugh. The mere idea that a fucking PowerPoint presentation will curb blatant xenophobia is a joke.

On the ground, it shows a total failure of physical and mental safety for students. On Tuesday 21 April 2026, around 60 students peacefully protested outside of the SU. Agitators and wannabe auditors from the budding Restore Britain Society stood jeering and filming the crowd. Stewards had to physically block them from filming their fellow students, as they tried to run into the crowd several times.

They even went so far as to follow attendees of the protest after the event dispersed, only stopping when campus security finally asked them to. I say this because, during the actual event, when the harassment was clearly on display, York SU staff and security did sweet FA to intervene. I witnessed with my own eyes how these aforementioned staff members were laughing and joking with the Restore Britain members.

The union promises to call the police retroactively if hate speech occurs. They are completely abdicating their preventative role to protect vulnerable Black and Brown students.

Student media complicity

The York Student Action Network, who organised the protest, also called out the mainstream campus establishment. They allege student media outlet York Nouse provided a centrist view of the events, producing lukewarm perspectives on what effectively places students in harm’s way.

The network alleges that these outlets failed to report on the true extent of the harassment on the day, as well as the depth of the fascist rhetoric. And to make things worse, Nouse completely compromised student safety even further.

They failed to blur the faces of the students attending the protest, despite requests from the organisers. They requested that, if photos were taken, permission be sought from the students in them. Yet it seems the publication really doesn’t give a shit, and proceeded to post them anyway.

This leaves so many young people who stood up against this budding Restore Society at risk. They are left wide open to harassment from it’s members, who have made it very clear that they don’t give a shit about breaking boundaries and approaching people aggressively.

Setting a dangerous precedent

York SU claim they want to fight for the community. They claim they can keep the leash on a society that speaks about deporting all foreigners, on campus, over a fucking round of pub golf. Claiming their hands are legally tied because one bloody MP stands in parliament – who wasn’t even elected under the Restore Britain brand – is wild.

They are allowing the safety and mental wellbeing of 28% of their student body to be shattered, thanks to the jeering cries of a few very sad, very racist young people. The SU claims they’re going to keep students safe, whilst simultaneously validating a society using the “Detain and Deport” banner.

By outsourcing ethics to lawyers, the union invites harassment onto campus. Students will remember exactly who the York University institution is choosing to protect when things inevitably get worse.

Featured images via Instagram & author

By Antifabot

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

Source link

The courts warned Yvette Cooper that her newspaper article on the proscription of Palestine Action ran the risk of biasing the jury during the trial of several members of the group. However, the then-home-secretary “went ahead anyway”.

Defense lawyers attempted to have the case thrown out on the grounds that Cooper had prejudiced proceedings. However, the presiding judge – Justice Johnson – ruled that Palestine Action’s proscription “required public justification”.

‘Not lawful protest’

Reporting restrictions have now been lifted on the trial of Palestine Action activists who raided an Elbit Systems factory in Bristol in 2024. Elbit is the largest producer of arms for Israel, which is currently committing genocide against the Palestinian people.

Back in August 2025, Cooper wrote an article for the Observer under the headline:

Yvetter Cooper: Palestine Action ‘is not lawful protest’

The article claimed that the charges against the group included “a terrorism connection” in the eyes of the CPS.

Because of the lifted restrictions, we now know that the CPS warned Cooper that her article ran the risk of prejudicing the jury. Likewise, as the Canary’s Skwawkbox reported at the time:

On Sunday 17 August, campaign group Defend Our Juries levelled a contempt of court complaint against the home secretary Yvette Cooper over an article in the Observer. Notably, this was after she made repeated insinuations that the government proscribed Palestine Action because of violence against people.

However, the former home secretary didn’t let that stop her.

‘She went ahead anyway’

Last November, as part of a previously unpublishable pre-trial ruling, Johnson wrote that:

It is to be taken that the home secretary was specifically advised that going ahead with the article might prejudice these proceedings, and that she went ahead anyway … The CPS made representations to the home secretary about the risk of prejudice.

It follows that the home secretary took the action that she did, and made the public statements that she did, in the knowledge that these proceedings were extant and that there might well be a question as to the impact of her conduct and her statements on these proceedings.

The defendants’ lawyers argued that Cooper’s public statements made a fair trial impossible. They submitted written statements alleging that the Observer article was:

dripping in innuendo. In one breath, she is saying that many important details cannot yet be publicly reported; in another, she is reporting some of those very details herself.

However, Johnson ruled against this defence. Instead, he argued that:

The decision to proscribe Palestine Action was highly controversial and required public justification. It is unsurprising that the government sought publicly to justify the decision that it had taken and that it relied, in general terms (without naming individuals), on Palestine Action’s activities, including the activities that have resulted in these proceedings.

In doing so, the home secretary ran a risk of causing some prejudice to these proceedings, but that is different from deliberately flouting a reporting restriction order.

Advertisement

Violence and property damage?

It’s noteworthy that Cooper’s article made serious allegations of violence against Palestine Action. She stated that:

Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for – and promoted on its website – attacks that have seen those allegedly involved subsequently charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary.

However, in its policy paper ‘Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations’, the government felt no such need to inform the public of the group’s alleged violence. The paper instead focuses almost solely on property damage and related offences:

In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the government. These include attacks at Thales in Glasgow in 2022, and in 2024 at Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. The seriousness of these attacks includes the extent and nature of damage caused, including to targets affecting UK national security, and the impact on innocent members of the public.

The state proscribed Palestine Action back in July 2025. However, the policy paper was last updated in January 2026, long after Cooper’s article. So, some questions arise here.

If it was so important to get the information out about Palestine Action’s alleged violence that Cooper could risk biasing a jury ahead of an important trial, why isn’t it in the policy paper? Why, instead, did the former home secretary publish this crucial public justification in the Observer, a paywalled news site?

Ultimately, all defendants in the Filton trial were acquitted of the charge of “violent disorder”. Samuel Corner, charged with “grievous bodily harm”, was also only found guilty of a lesser charge, with the jury finding he injured a police officer “without intent.”

Further sentencing

In February 2026, the High Court ruled the government proscription of Palestine Action to be unlawful.

Regarding the recent retrial, as of 12 May 2026, defendants Jordan Devlin and Zoe Rogers have been acquitted. Their four comrades were convicted after the trial judge forbade any mention of the jury’s legal right to acquit on conscience.

As Skwawkbox explained for the Canary, the government wants those four – Samuel Corner, Charlotte Head, Leona Kamio and Fatema Rajwani – sentenced as terrorists. They were convicted of criminal damage, rather than any terror offence.

Sentencing will take place at Woolwich Crown Court on 12 June 2026.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

David Lammy has been doing the rounds on breakfast television discussing his latest plans to reform the way the justice system handles youth offenders. Promising that he will cut the number of children jailed by 25% and ending lifelong criminal records for young people, Lammy instead appears to be passing jail time onto parents instead.

Once again Lammy shows that he is more interested in statistics than in addressing the real issues behind these serious problems in our society. After all, we know the impact that under investment in communities, lack of opportunities and poverty have on the likelihood of antisocial behaviour and youth crime.

Therefore, whilst Lammy’s proposal contains positive changes such as ending lifelong criminal records for under-18s, it does precious little to address this long-neglected issue in British society.

Put simply, it will yet again pass the burden of responsibility onto increasingly overwhelmed and struggling families.

David Lammy, the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, will introduce reforms in the Youth Justice White Paper today. 

Parents and guardians could face harsher repercussions if their children break the law.

Sophy and Wilf discuss on #CheatSheet: https://t.co/tphdz3SBas pic.twitter.com/ZJKVuXRcLI

— Sky News (@SkyNews) May 18, 2026

Advertisement

Lammy: where is the investment in youth?

Firstly, it’s important to recognise that the white paper put forward by David Lammy does include some positive measures that could improve the lives of criminalised young people in British society.

For example, alongside reducing the number of young people held in custody while awaiting trial, it will also prevent youth offences from following them into adult life. That shift could make a real difference to future opportunities for those affected, and in turn lead to far better long-term outcomes.

However, the paper still falls short in acknowledging the deeper causes of antisocial behaviour and youth crime. The drivers of youth crime run much deeper, and without serious investment in communities, the same problems will persist – only now with a wider net of criminalisation affecting entire families.

According to the Guardian, Lammy celebrated his reform proposal saying:

Growing up in Tottenham in the 1980s, my biggest fear was ending up in prison. That may sound irrational, but in truth it was the fate of so many young Black boys like me.

You saw it happen slowly at first. People missed school, got into petty trouble, started hanging around with the wrong crowd. No one stepped in to pull them back. For us, going to jail didn’t feel shocking or distant. It felt almost inevitable.

I could have been one of them, but was fortunate to get a scholarship to a state boarding school, which gave me the route out that others never had.

I often think: ‘There but for the grace of God go I.’ Even today, that line between a child who thrives and a child whose life falls apart is often painfully thin.

Advertisement

“Anything for an easy life”

Struggling families often have backgrounds of deep trauma, poverty, and struggle. Many families who are considered to have largely ‘given up’ feel deeply that society has given up on them first.

For example, most families living on the breadline are also surrounded by similarly deprived communities that have seen little to no investment. They’re left to cope alone, with almost no real support to help them get through relentless financial pressure and increasingly busy lives.

So, when children start to struggle, it becomes an overwhelming burden. In some cases, people step back simply because they feel exhausted, unsupported, and stuck looking at what feels like a pretty bleak future. Understanding why so-called ‘anti-social behaviour’ happens is the only way to actually fix it.

Decades of underinvestment have left communities with crumbling infrastructure, barely any green spaces, and no youth services where young people can feel safe or actually socialise.

This class-war move to continually demonise and diminish working class families for the society they are stuck with, which underpays and undervalues the work of ordinary people, runs deep in British society:

'Lord' Bamford shouts loud about scroungers on Welfare ….
The Irony….
From the guy who owes over £500 Million in Taxes.
Apparently 16k of the most vulnerable families in the UK receive 60k in 'Benefits' ….no doubt extreme circumstances as this isn't usual from DWP 4 sure https://t.co/kU9kcqLLu8

— Barnaclebum6 (@barnaclebum6) May 16, 2026

People need to feel they have worth in society

Increasingly, young people are criminalised for minor offences, based on the belief that punishing low-level disorder prevents more serious crime. In reality, this has functioned as little more than a sticking-plaster solution for neglected communities, failing to address the structural causes of offending.

These policies have also disproportionately targeted minoritised groups, who are often more likely to live in deprived areas as a result of systemic inequality. Higher rates of criminalisation in such communities do not indicate an inherent predisposition to crime but rather reflect the social and economic conditions imposed upon them.

An establishment that has spent years pushing austerity – and continues to do so under this Labour government – keeps blaming individuals. All the while MPs ignore that this reflects a much bigger, structural problem in the UK.

This X account sums up the failures by this government which is coincidentally is doing precious little to address:

The Labour Party is currently an absolute shitshow and most people have already written them off.

But even this broken, hated government could still stop Reform from steamrolling everything in 2029.

Here’s what they’d actually have to do (whether they’ve got the balls is…

— Thanos Angelopoulos (@Th_Angelopoulos) February 6, 2026

Advertisement

Of particular note, they say:

Pump serious money into exactly those same left-behind places: vocational training centres, youth clubs, actual green factories, rebuild town centres, buses that turn up, green spaces, properly funded schools and social services.

Prevention is better than cure

Nevertheless, David Lammy does take a positive step in this white paper by seeking to reduce the long-term consequences of criminalising young people. However, it remains a measly ‘sticking plaster’ solution. It ignores the much-needed investment in young people, in society as a whole, and in any real prospect of social mobility for young people.

Instead of blaming families for youth crime, the government should improve the conditions those families are forced to live in. Better housing, security and opportunity would do far more to reduce offending. Improving these issues will improve wellbeing, mental health and the future prospects of entire families.

Finally, it has to be said: MPs are gaslighting children when they blame family poverty for behaviour. Instead, they should be facing up to the state policies that drive their lived deprivation in the first place.

That needs calling out – clearly, and by all of us.

Featured image via Getty Images/Dan Kitwood

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

The following is an open letter from the West Central London Green Party to Paul Swaddle, leader of Westminster City Council and Conservative Party councillor for Regent’s Park Ward. It concerns his comments about two marches that took place in London on 16 May.

Dear Cllr Paul Swaddle OBE,

18th May 2026

We, as residents of the City of Westminster and members of the local Green Party, are writing to you with concerns about your comments on the two protests that took place on Saturday the 16th of May.

We are disturbed by the stark contrast in your approach to the ‘Nakba 78’ march and the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ march. In your letter to the Home Secretary, you began by making gestures towards both protests, but then you swiftly transitioned to calling for a moratorium solely on the pro-Palestine marches. You clearly forgot to mention the harm that the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ march caused in September, and the risk that it posed this time round.

Last September, we saw a large range of unacceptable and racist behaviour at the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ protest, with officers severely injured, Islamophobic chants and Elon Musk saying that attendees must “fight back or […] die”. Immigrants and people of colour were made to feel unsafe in the city that they call home. This year, we saw much of the same.

This movement is clearly one that inflames hatred against Muslims and immigrants. On Saturday, we saw activists take to the stage at the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ protest, mocking women who exercise their full right to wear Burqas. We saw people, including police officers, being racially abused, and we heard Tommy Robinson, the organiser of this march, talking about his desire to ‘stop Islam’.

We ask that you retract your statement that the ‘Nakba 78’ march and other similar peaceful marches “send damaging messages that extremist opinions are acceptable”, and that you rescind the labelling of protests in support of Palestine as “hate marches”. The allegation that tens of thousands of Britons of all faiths and none, including many Westminster residents, are either extremists or promoters of extremism is a baseless and inflammatory one.

We condemn your imbalanced approach to these two marches and question your intention when you specifically call for the suspension of protests in support of Palestine and not the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ protests. We are unfortunately left with the conclusion that you operate on a hierarchy of racism, where hatred against Muslims is ignored, and broad accusations of anti-semitism are used in order to crack down on the right to protest.

In our view, the double standards you are operating on and the blind-eye turned to racist behaviour calls into question your suitability as council leader of a borough filled with residents from all different communities.

We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

West Central London Green Party

Featured image via Brook Mitchell / Getty Images and Carl Court / Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link