How did researchers find that out?

Which types of ADHD did they find?

What might that mean?

What are the reviews for Lily Allen’s West End Girl shows like?

What are fans saying about Lily Allen’s West End Girl tour?

Where is Lily Allen performing on her West End Girl tour next?

Green party deputy leader Mothin Ali has said the lies of Keir Starmer and Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke could get him killed. He has already received death threats as a result of the smears, made by the two MPs under ‘parliamentary privilege’ that protects them from legal action.

Shelbrooke claimed on Monday 2 March that Ali had been “protesting in support of the ayatollah”. This was a reference to Iranian cleric Ali Khamenei, deliberately murdered along with his family by Israeli bombs. Ali had done no such thing. Instead he had participated in an anti-war protest against the ongoing illegal US-Israeli attacks on Iran.

Shelbrooke claimed to be:

appalled – not shocked, I am afraid to say – as I am sure the PM was, to see at the weekend the deputy leader of the Green Party once again protesting in support of the ayatollah.

The hatred and fear that runs through Leeds now, which has been whipped up at times by Councillor Mothin, is a disgrace.

Advertisement

Rather than correct this disgraceful lie, Starmer chose to try to excuse Labour’s disastrous by-election defeat last week by giving the claim his racist endorsement:

I think we were all shocked by the actions of the deputy leader of the Green Party – although perhaps not surprised, given that party’s recent turn of direction.

Mothin Ali isn’t taking this lying down

Ali pointed out the spinelessness of using privilege to smear him, telling Middle East Eye that:

He can say what he wants in there and get away with it. I want to see how brave he is. Will he repeat this outside parliament?

The PM is just another coward and allied with the Tories. He’s let down the British public and he needs to resign. The Green Party has been accused of sectarianism. This is why that’s wrong.

They will get me killed…over the last couple of days I’ve received about 20 death threats.

Advertisement

Ali went on to say that he is not a supporter of Iran’s government but was outraged by the US-Israel murder of more than 160 schoolgirls by bombing their school:

A whole load of little girls had just been blown to bits. I’m not supposed to feel anything about that?

When black and brown kids get blown up no one cares. If I left politics and went for a job interview, this is the first thing people would see online.

Party leader Zack Polanski said Starmer showed “blatant Islamophobia” and had smeared “a caring man of principle standing up for peace”. He added that the comments show the establishment’s fear of peace activists, especially Muslims:

There’s nothing the establishment is more scared of than a calm, kind, thoughtful gardener who happens to be a Muslim man in politics.

How low can they go?

Like Starmer, Shelbrooke is an ardent supporter of Israeli murder and apartheid. In June 2025, as Israel illegally attacked Iran and murdered civilians before getting its arse handed to it in the so-called ’12-day war’, Shelbrooke told MPs that:

I want to put it on the record that Israel has my absolute full support in the action that it is taking.

Starmer, of course, does not have the spine to stand outside number 10 and repeat his smears, as he knows the response his heinous remarks will get. Not even an anonymous ‘Number 10 spokesperson’ would answer requests to clarify or correct Starmer’s lie.

Based on this episode and much more, he and Shelbrooke are racist, genocide-enabling scum pandering to the worst instincts of the foul, pea-brain right. And that’s not under parliamentary privilege.

Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Hugo Harvey

Rafe Fletcher is the founder of CWG.

My memories of Japan are coloured by British triumphalism. In 2019, I was in Oita to see England thrash Australia in the Rugby World Cup. And last November, I saw Oasis play to a sell-out crowd in Tokyo.

Touring acts are more welcome than those putting down permanent roots. Japan’s foreign resident population is growing and, at four million, now constitutes around three percent of the population. They are readily identifiable in such an ethnically homogeneous country.

Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who models herself on Britain’s own Iron Lady, won a landslide victory last month. She is pro-market and firm on immigration. But, as yet, her latter stance is heavier on rhetoric than policy. Because Japan is in a precarious position. How does it balance public demand to retain a clear national identity with the structural challenges of the world’s oldest population? Barring a sudden reproductive resurgence or a robotics revolution, foreign workers have to fix lopsided demographics.

Japan is an outlier because national identity is so intertwined with ethnicity. But the subject is nonetheless getting a bit more mainstream in Britain. Elon Musk recently swung behind Rupert Lowe’s splinter group Restore, because it takes predictions of a white British minority seriously. Nigel Farage’s caution about who that conversation encourages seemingly lost him the prospect of Musk’s backing.

Polite conversation avoids the topic because Britain’s demographic transformation was unplanned.

In 1945, Britain was almost as ethnically uniform as contemporary Japan. Politicians did not anticipate that post-war immigration from the Caribbean and South Asia would change that. It was then imagined as a temporary response to acute labour shortages. In 1956, debates in the House of Lords still referred to Commonwealth arrivals as “visitors”. The historian Colin Holmes notes that migrants largely shared that impression, writing in John Bull’s Island that they viewed themselves as “temporary labourers or sojourners…hoping to return home with needed capital.”

Social change was an unintended consequence of addressing economic needs. That does not make it inherently good or bad. But it suggests the country never really confronted what British identity meant once it could no longer be assumed. The familiarity of language and looks is easier to grasp than values when it comes to creating a sense of belonging.

That search for shared values is made harder by what Suella Braverman condemns as the “casual, anything-goes approach to culture and identity”. Nebulous catch-all appeals to “tolerance”, or worse, “diversity”, are flimsily ascribed as defining national characteristics. It lacks any active sense of participation. It undervalues Britain by negating any real commitment to it.

It’s here, of course, that I must go back to Asia to suggest a different way of doing things. In Singapore, my immigration status is made very apparent. There is little sensitivity in designating Employment Pass (EP) holders like me as “foreigner” in official correspondence. Singapore’s foreign population is substantial – constituting almost two million of its six million population – but clearly delineated. We are not part of the civic realm and have no access to state-funded services.

There is a route to deeper integration through Permanent Residency (PR). But there are strict qualifying criteria and even successful applicants do not gain permanent rights. PR holders must renew their status every five years. It can be revoked for criminal misconduct or a deemed lack of economic contribution. Increased civic status also comes with accompanying responsibilities. Most notably, your male offspring will be subject to compulsory National Service at 18.

Every year, around 25,000 PRs go one step further and obtain citizenship. There is no explicitly ethnic aspect to this. But it’s generally recognised that it follows founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s strategy of pursuing a certain demographic equilibrium. He pledged that Singapore would always be majority Chinese with smaller Malay and Indian minorities. New citizenships broadly preserve that balance.

Speaking at Imperial College in 2002, Lee argued that Britain’s lack of similar micromanagement breeds an ailing society. He said that importing workers without any plan for uniting races or cultures led to ghettoisation. Something that was evident only last week as the Greens won in Gorton and Denton by appealing to extranational affiliations in the Middle East.

But such technocratic planning is not possible in Britain. The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood revealed in November that the previous government’s attempt to fill between 6,000 and 40,000 jobs in the health and care sector led to the arrival of 616,000 individuals between 2022 and 2024. If Britain is overshooting those targets by 1,400 percent, it is unlikely to fare too well with strategically planned quotas.

The more pertinent lesson lies in what Lee observes Britain has lost since 1945: “that quiet pride and self-confidence, that national cohesiveness that marked out the British people after victory in World War Two.”

It stems from insecurity in what being British really means. It is no longer something simply inherited nor is it anything easily articulated. Restoring confidence instead requires a sense of reciprocity. Singapore does this well in its prohibition of dual citizenship and enforcement of National Service. It forces citizens to actively participate and forego any other national loyalties.

Britain, by contrast, asks very little of its people. Even though it’s to my advantage, I’m always astonished at the treatment of Brits abroad. As Dubai expats discover now, we retain full access to state services without any of the onerous tax implications. Similarly, it allows its passport to be part of an international portfolio – somewhere to hedge your bets rather than commit.

And it offers few binding experiences to really bring an increasingly diverse population together. Unfortunately it came towards the back end of his premiership but a similar national service scheme was one of Sunak’s brighter ideas, particularly when university increasingly looks an imprudent bet.

Britain needs a more muscular vision of identity rooted in commitment. Pride cannot reside only in the vestiges of cultural triumphs abroad. It must inspire loyalty at home too.

In every constituency, there will be young people having to navigate the difficulties of growing up with this chronic illness. This is why Arthritis UK is bringing a young people’s art exhibition to Parliament next week to shine a light on their experiences so that they receive the recognition and care they deserve. 

Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) is a form of inflammatory arthritis diagnosed in people under the age of 16. Receiving a diagnosis at such a young age can be an overwhelming experience, and this disease impacts all stages of what can be considered a balanced and fair upbringing. 

For young people, having arthritis translates into missing school or playtime for medical appointments, having to learn complex medical terminology alongside completing homework, balancing fatigue with maintaining a healthy social life, and isolation proven to impact relationships and family planning.

Arthritis UK believes that the needs of young people living with arthritis have been neglected, leading to poor diagnosis and poor outcomes from a lack of support, and stigma. This World Young Rheumatic Disease Day (WORD Day) (18th March), the charity is calling on MPs to challenge the common misconception that arthritis is ‘just an old person’s disease’.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has a personal connection to the cause, often speaking about his own mother’s diagnosis of Still’s disease, which is a form of JIA. 

In the run-up to the WORD Day, Arthritis UK is proud to welcome just a fraction of the children and young people across the UK living with JIA into Parliament to celebrate the opening of an art exhibition, ‘Inside Arthritis’. The exhibition will be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall (9th to 12th March), and parliamentarians will have the chance to hear first-hand the very real challenges and needs of these young ambassadors. 

The artwork displayed in the exhibition has been sourced from Arthritis UK’s ‘Joint Creativity’ art programme. ‘Joint Creativity’ educates young people about the science behind their condition through fun and accessible mediums. These interactive sessions are an opportunity to connect with a community that understands the difficulties of growing up with a chronic illness, which can often be an isolating experience.

Arthritis can equally impact mental health as much as physical health, with a recent report from Arthritis UK, Left Waiting, Left Behind, revealing that one in four people living with arthritis experience anxiety most of or all the time.

Therefore, having a creative outlet can make understanding these processes less intimidating and encourage young people to feel in control of their condition.  

This is true for Penny, 14, from Kent, who lives with JIA and has been a longstanding art club attendee and said:

“Joint Creativity made me feel less alone because I was meeting other young people with JIA, talking with others who really understand because they are going through the same things.

“There’s still a misconception around JIA because people still think that arthritis is something that only affects older people. I think the fact younger people get it needs to be more well-known because that awareness would bring more understanding.”

Arthritis UK, the UK’s leading arthritis charity, works to ensure that all people living with arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions are cared for and represented. Whether that be through funding world-leading research, provision of health information to patients and professionals or through services, such as the Young People and Families Service. 

Deborah Alsina MBE, Arthritis UK’s Chief Executive, will be speaking at the opening event and looks forward to hearing the empowering young artists’ stories first hand.

Deborah said: “’Inside Arthritis’ is a great opportunity for parliamentarians to hear first-hand from young people about the stigma and challenges of living with arthritis.  

 

“Like the Prime Minister, many of us know someone living with arthritis, the resilience it requires and the knock-on impact it can have on quality of life and mental health. This is particularly acute for those affected earlier in life; one study has shown nearly 60 per cent of children and young people with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis had or required mental health support.  

 

“Current polices and services do not adequately reflect the impact on both the individual, family and society. We hope that by hearing from our inspirational young people, parliamentarians will be inspired to help us advocate for greater change and, in doing so, tackle the misconception that arthritis is an older person’s disease.”