Connect with us
DAPA Banner
DAPA Coin
DAPA
COIN PAYMENT ASSET
PRIVACY · BLOCKDAG · HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION · RUST
ElGamal Encrypted MINE DAPA
🚫 GENESIS SOLD OUT
DAPAPAY COMING

Politics

The woke lynching of Henry Nowak

Published

on

The woke lynching of Henry Nowak

For me, the most chilling thing in the bodycam footage of Henry Nowak’s last moments of life is the cops’ cruel presumption that he is lying. As he writhes in terror and agony and cries out ‘I’ve been stabbed!’, a voice in the background – presumably that of the lowlife who murdered him, Vickrum Digwa – says: ‘He hasn’t been stabbed.’ A female officer responds. ‘I know’, she says. ‘But we have to check, don’t we?’

I know. It is delivered with dry, bureaucratic indifference. Henry is heard moaning, begging, ‘I can’t breathe’, yet here is a representative of the state seeming to agree with his knife-wielding tormentor that he is making it up. That cold, cavalier utterance – I know – will have cemented dying Henry’s great dread: that the police were taking the side of his killer rather than him. As his young, precious life came to an end, he heard himself being disbelieved, distrusted, icily written off as a fabulist. His murderer, meanwhile, was afforded respect. The state blindly bowed to his filthy lies.

The bodycam footage of the arrest of 18-year-old Henry Nowak after he was stabbed in Southampton in December last year is horrifying beyond belief. It is one of the most harrowing two minutes of video I have ever watched. Henry can be seen sprawled in agony in a stranger’s driveway, the place he sought sanctuary after being knifed four times by Digwa. His failing voice is thick with pain and fear. What he wanted in that moment – what he needed – was to be believed. The belief of others was the only thing that might have delivered him from his terror-stricken state. But it never came. He said ‘I can’t breathe’ nine times. He said ‘I’ve been stabbed’ four times. ‘I don’t think you have, mate’, said an officer with chirpy, inhumane derision.

Advertisement

It is appalling. A boy’s final moments were filled with the defamatory taunts of his murderer – who falsely accused Henry of racism and assault – and the sterile contempt of the state. With the gloating of the scumbag who stole his life and the clinical disdain of police officers who should have fought for his life. What comes next in the footage is almost unwatchable. The cops drag fatally wounded Henry across the gravel of the driveway. They force his hands behind his back to cuff him. ‘I can’t breathe’, he cries one more time. ‘Put the hand in the cuff, mate’, says an officer as if he were talking to a dog. Seldom has the monstrous indifference of the state apparatus been on such stark display.

Henry was not believed until his life had faded away. As his father, Mark, said in his stirring statement outside court yesterday following the sentencing of Digwa, ‘He lost consciousness before anyone believed him’. The last words Henry heard were the police reading him his rights as they arrested him for assault on the basis of the evil fabrications of his killer. It is difficult to fathom the depravity of these events. A boy manhandled and cuffed as he drowned in his own blood. A dying teen dragged, demeaned, insulted. No nation that calls itself civilised can let an atrocity like this go unexamined. Henry’s life may have ended but the reckoning as to how this dystopic horror could have occurred has only just begun.

Advertisement

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Advertisement




Please wait…

Advertisement
Advertisement

The footage from that blood-stained driveway deserves to be a defining moral juncture for our nation. To me, it felt almost like a woke lynching. A dying boy is surrounded by a gawping mob, including the killer and his associates. His killer had already taunted him, filming him as he ran for his life and zooming in on his pain-scarred face as he collapsed in that driveway. Then the forces of the state arrive and compound the savagery of it all by dragging the dying boy across the stony ground and forcing his hands into cuffs. ‘Mate’, they say in mocking tones as he pleads for his life. In that jittering footage we are witnessing the violent humiliation of an innocent lad, initiated by a ruthless knifeman and aided and abetted by an unfeeling state.

This is the barbarism of the ‘caring state’. This is where decades of institutionalised ‘social justice’ have dragged us – into a moral abyss where a boy begging for help can be treated as a criminal because the man who just drove a knife into his legs, chest and face libelled him as racist. Here’s the truth: Vickrum Digwa had two weapons that night – his knife and the racism card. The blade with which he laid waste to young Henry’s life and the venal lie about racist abuse that he knew very well would distract the police’s attention from him. He got the knife himself, but his other instrument of terror was gifted to him by the woke state that has made a holy mission of uncovering ‘racism’ everywhere, even where it does not exist.

Advertisement

Digwa exploited the physical vulnerability of an unarmed young man and the ideological credulity of the captured state. He preyed upon Henry and then he preyed upon the ruling order’s missionary zeal regarding ‘racism’. He understood – as we all do – that the word ‘racism’ has an almost hypnotic effect on the 21st-century ruling class. Bereft of moral purpose, absent political vision, the state has made a religion out of what it falsely calls ‘anti-racism’. Digwa knew the power of the racism charge, and it worked: the police believed this non-white man and disbelieved the white boy. Like magic, the word ‘racism’ turned them from cool-minded cops into bit-part players in a morality play in which whites are always suspect and non-whites always sympathetic.

No doubt the officers on the ground failed in their basic duties. But we mustn’t overlook the ideology that moulds such apathetic cruelty. Police forces across the UK are instructed to instantly believe all accusations of hate crime. They are trained in the warped commandments of critical race theory. Indeed, Hampshire Police, who cover Southampton, have a ‘race action plan’ that teems with critical-race drivel. It describes the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020 as a ‘pivotal moment’ for British police forces, in that it compelled them to recommit to ‘zero tolerance of racism’, to be ‘anti-racist in [all we do]’ and to appreciate the ‘impact [and] trauma’ policing can have on ‘ethnic-minority communities’.

Try to take in the Kafkaesque moral madness on display here. They learn the lessons of a black man killed while saying ‘I can’t breathe’, only to see their own cops horribly mistreat a white boy who said ‘I can’t breathe’. The very ‘anti-racism’ they imbibed in response to an African-American man dying with a cop’s knee on his neck leads to a situation where their officers drag and cuff a dying white kid. It is undeniable now: the state’s overcompensation for past acts of racism has unleashed new horrors. It is now official ‘anti-racism’ that nurtures injustice, unequal treatment and barbaric state behaviour. It is now ‘anti-racism’ that dehumanises the citizenry, dividing us into ‘the oppressed’ and ‘the oppressors’, and gifting or denying us moral worth accordingly. The horror on that driveway was more than a police screw-up – it was the metaphorical boot of wokeness on the neck of a young man, and a whole nation.

Advertisement

Our political class is in for the mother of all awakenings if it fails to recognise the anger this case has caused. Keir Starmer’s belated statement on the Nowak horror was horrendously perfunctory, yapping on about the ‘cycle of tragedy’ caused by ‘knife crime’. All the knee-bending passion he felt after George Floyd’s death seems to have evaporated into the cursory, fleeting angst of the impassive lawyer. Millions are clocking this. That he doesn’t know that is a tragedy – for him.

Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. His latest book – After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation – is available to order on Amazon UK and Amazon US now. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Anna Faris Reflects On ‘Scrutiny’ She Faced After Chris Pratt Divorce

Published

on

Anna Faris and Chris Pratt in April 2017

Anna Faris has made some rare comments about her divorce from Chris Pratt.

In a new interview with Variety, the Scary Movie star reflected on her painful split from Chris, to whom she was married for eight years before their 2017 break-up, and the scrutiny she faced from the public after she and the Marvel actor parted ways.

The divorce was finalised in 2018.

“I was feeling sad,” Anna recalled. “I do feel like I had enough gumption, enough of a core, and I have tried to be careful about how much Hollywood infiltrates, but now I’ve been on a spectrum of fame for 26 years, so I would be naïve to think that it hasn’t shaped who I am at this point.”

Advertisement

“But, fuck,” she added. “The scrutiny…”

Anna, who shares 13-year-old son Jack with her ex-husband, credited her podcast, Anna Faris Is Unqualified, for giving her a support system and helping her deal with the public break-up.

Anna Faris and Chris Pratt in April 2017
Anna Faris and Chris Pratt in April 2017

“I didn’t disclose a lot on the podcast, but I always felt like I could if I needed to. The podcast helped me a lot during that time,” she said.

Anna later tied the knot with cinematographer Michael Barrett in 2021. Meanwhile, Chris got remarried to Katherine Schwarzenegger in 2019. He and his second wife have since welcomed three more children.

Speaking to People in October 2017, Anna said that she and the Guardians Of The Galaxy star have remained close pals and were focused on co-parenting their son.

Advertisement

“We’ll always have each other and be incredible friends,” she said at the time.

“There is still so much laughter in our lives together, and he is so proud of me, still. We watched each other grow, and he still cracks me up all the time.”

Chris told Entertainment Weekly in 2018 that “divorce sucks” while discussing the split.

“But at the end of the day, we’ve got a great kid [Jack] who’s got two parents who love him very much,” he noted. “And we’re finding a way to navigate this while still remaining friends and still being kind to one another.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The House Article | How Well Do You Remember Brexit? Take Robert Hutton’s Quiz

Published

on

How Well Do You Remember Brexit? Take Robert Hutton's Quiz
How Well Do You Remember Brexit? Take Robert Hutton's Quiz

(Thamesfleet/Alamy)


5 min read

It’s 10 years since Britain’s momentous decision to, according to your taste, throw off the shackles of European oppression or make it harder to sell things to France.

Advertisement

Perhaps the morning of 24 June 2016 found you looking, as David Cameron did, like a man whose political dreams were shattered. Or perhaps, like Boris Johnson, you were triumphantly wondering what the hell you were supposed to do now.

But how much can you remember of the intervening decade? Do you know your alternative arrangements from your Windsor framework? It’s time to find out with our epic quiz (answers below). Will the winner get prosecco, a BMW or £350m a week? That’ll come out in the ensuing negotiations. Just remember that the moment you finish the quiz, you hold all the cards.

    Advertisement
  1. In 2006, what did David Cameron tell his party off for doing while parents “worried about getting the kids to school”?
  2. Which party’s 2010 manifesto promised “an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU”?
  3. Cameron’s 2013 address promising a referendum (poignantly, it was delivered in the early morning, while parents were worrying about getting their kids to school) became known as the Bloomberg Speech, but the company’s London headquarters were a second-choice venue. In which city was the speech originally scheduled to be given?
  4. Which party’s 2015 manifesto proclaimed: “We say: yes to the Single Market”?
  5. The referendum campaign saw Nigel Farage leading an armada of fishing boats up the Thames. Which pop star raised his own fleet to intercept him?
  6. The timing of the exit process was controversial from the start:

    A  Who said the morning after the vote: “Article 50 has to be invoked now”?

    B  Which party said during the 2017 election that it had been a mistake to trigger Article 50 at all?
  7. In 2017, which party…

    A  …pledged to “unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain”?

    B  …promised “a new deep and special partnership with the EU”?

    C  …said it would negotiate a Brexit agreement and “we will put that deal to a vote of the British people in a referendum, with the alternative option of staying in the EU”?
  8. By 2019, which party promised…

    A  …to “ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK”?

    B  …to put a deal “to a public vote alongside the option to remain”?

    C  …to “stop this mess, revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU”?
  9. The UK Independence Party was crucial to Britain’s decision to leave:

    A  How many leaders did it have over the course of 2016?

    B  How many of them were Nigel Farage?

    C  How many of them are still party members?
  10. What was the name of the book published by Nick Clegg in October 2017, after he lost his seat in Parliament?

    A  How to Get Rich.

    B  How to Stop Brexit.

    C  How to Make Facebook Ethical.
  11. The first two Brexit secretaries were David Davis and Dominic Raab. Who was the third?
  12. Raab had been a passionate supporter of Brexit, but in 2018 he revealed he’d underestimated the importance to British trade of what?
  13. In 2019, a group of 11 Labour and Conservative MPs announced they were forming a new anti-Brexit party. It became known as Change UK: The Independent Group. Nine months later, how many of them were still in the party?
  14. In March 2019, MPs were given “indicative votes”, the chance to show which of eight options they would be willing to support. How many passed?
  15. Dominic Raab said Theresa May’s deal was “worse than staying in”. Johnson called it “the worst of both worlds”. Jacob Rees-Mogg said Britain would be “not so much a vassal state any more as a slave state”. How did they all ultimately vote on the deal?
  16. In September 2019, Rees-Mogg described something as a “constitutional coup”? Was it:

    A  Asking the Queen to prorogue Parliament in order to stop MPs from debating Brexit.

    B  The Supreme Court ruling that the prorogation had been unlawful.
  17. Who said, in 2017, “If Brexit is a disaster I will go and live abroad” and then, in 2023, “Brexit has failed”? And are they now living abroad?
  18. What, in 2018, did May insist that no British prime minister could agree to?
  19. What, in 2019, did Johnson assure business owners he had not agreed to?
  20. Were either of them right? 

 

Answers

1    “Banging on about Europe”

   The Liberal Democrats

3    Amsterdam

4    The Conservatives

   Bob Geldof

   A Jeremy Corbyn; B UKIP

   A Labour; B Conservatives; C Liberal Democrats

8    A Conservatives; B Labour; C Liberal Democrats

   A four; B two; C none

10    B

11    Steve Barclay, though we only have his word for it

12    Dover

13    Five

14    None

15    For it

16    B

17    Nigel Farage. No.

18    A border in the Irish Sea

19    A border in the Irish Sea

20    No

Score

0-5: no deal; 6-10: vassal state; 11-15: Norway; 16-20: Canada; 21-25: customs union; 25-28: bespoke free-trade agreement.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

All Eyes Are On Starmer Amid Mounting Expectations PM Will Quit

Published

on

All Eyes Are On Starmer Amid Mounting Expectations PM Will Quit

Keir Starmer is about to resign, according to widespread reports.

Less than two years after his landslide victory in the 2024 general election, the prime minister seems to have lost the support of his party.

More than 100 Labour MPs have publicly called for him to quit and a growing list of his own cabinet ministers are said to have privately told him to stand down.

Two former cabinet ministers, Wes Streeting and John Healey, even quit over Starmer’s leadership in the last month.

Advertisement

Business and trade secretary Peter Kyle revealed his boss was weighing up the “political realities” in the coming days on Sunday.

Meanwhile, skills minister Jacqui Smith caused a stir when she seemed to hint the PM was heading off on Monday morning.

She told Times Radio, “I would have been happy for him to continue” – but later urged journalists not to get ahead of themselves by predicting Starmer’s next move.

Even so, the Guardian reported on Monday that Starmer was allegedly working on his resignation speech with a handful of his top team while holed up in his grace-and-favour Chequers residence over the weekend.

Advertisement

If that is true, it’s a complete pivot from last Friday when Starmer insisted he would not walk away from the job and would stay on to fight any leadership contest triggered by his opponents.

But No.10 has not pushed back on any reports that the PM is considering resigning, even after US president Donald Trump bizarrely predicted Starmer would quit on Sunday.

However, even if he does announce his decision to quit on Monday, several key questions remain.

Will Starmer agree to an “orderly transition” to his successor and stay in place until September?

Advertisement

That would allow him to tie up his legacy while building on his international reputation by attending a Nato summit and an EU “reset” summit, both in July.

It would also give his successor a chance to build up a body of policies so they can hit the ground running.

But will that successor automatically be Andy Burnham?

The outgoing Greater Manchester mayor won the Makerfield by-election last Thursday, giving him a seat in parliament and a chance to challenge Starmer’s leadership.

Advertisement

He is widely expected to have the support of the required 81 Labour MPs needed to oust the prime minister.

As the most popular politician within Labour, a Burnham victory is likely to be shoo-in in any leadership contest.

Several of his allies therefore want to skip holding such a disruptive race altogether, and have a “coronation” for Burnham.

But opponents suggest that would mean he does not have a mandate to rule if there has not been a battle of ideas among party members first.

Advertisement

Home Office minister Mike Tapp also weighed into the growing debate over whether a Starmer resignation means there should be a general election.

He said: “That would stop the constant churn and focus all politicians on delivery, instead of workplace politics.”

But that’s caused concern over the risk of further upheaval, especially as the UK teeters on the edge of its seventh prime minister in a decade.

Starmer is expected to give a statement in the Commons this afternoon to give MPs an update about his G7 trip last week.

Advertisement

Will he have offered any clarity about his future by then – or leave Westminster in limbo?

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

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Vanessa Feltz ‘Shocked’ To By Channel 5 Talk Show Cancellation

Published

on

Vanessa Feltz 'Shocked' To By Channel 5 Talk Show Cancellation

Vanessa Feltz has admitted that the news of her daytime show’s cancellation came out of the blue.

Last year, the veteran broadcaster began fronting the talk show Vanessa on 5 (previously known as Channel 5), in which she and a celebrity panel discuss topical issues and speak to viewers calling into the studio.

Since it premiered in March 2025, the show has hit a few bumps in the road, most notably low viewing figures and a string of prank calls during its phone-in discussions.

Last week, 5 confirmed on Thursday that Vanessa was being pulled from next month.

Advertisement

“Due to afternoon scheduling changes, Vanessa will be rested from 17 July,” a spokesperson said. “We thank Vanessa and her team at ITN for 18 months of warm, witty, wise and searingly honest shows.”

Vanessa broke her silence on the news during Saturday’s edition of her LBC show, telling her listeners: “It was a bit of a shock. It was meant to be a delightful year’s contract, the show was going really well…

“I was shocked to the core and very upset and I still am. It was only Wednesday at 3 o’clock that I found out.”

Vanessa went on to claim that it was 5 owners Paramount who made the decision, as they “want to show Paramount movies every afternoon” in her timeslot, because it “doesn’t cost them any money”.

Advertisement

A 5 spokesperson added last week: “Vanessa remains a valued member of the Channel 5 family and we are discussing future projects together.”

Prior to landing her own 5 series, Vanessa had been a regular face on This Morning.

She previously told Metro that she “would happily have stayed” part of This Morning’s on-air team “and gone on the back of a motorbike from the This Morning studio straight to 5 and done both”.

“I almost believed I’d be able to do that, but I think apparently, it’s not the way it’s done,” she added. “But I’d have done it, and I think they would have been happy for me to do it too.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Rod Stewart Required Oxygen Tank After Almost Fainting Mid-Concert

Published

on

Rod Stewart Required Oxygen Tank After Almost Fainting Mid-Concert

Sir Rod Stewart had to briefly pause a live show in the US last week, after coming close to fainting on stage.

On Friday night, the British crooner was performing in West Valley City, Utah, where video footage shared by TMZ depicted him bent over in pain, and leaning on equipment and staging around him to steady himself.

After that, an oxygen tank was brought onto the stage, which he used, before telling the crowd: “The show must go on. I nearly fucking fainted there.”

“Would you mind if I sit down for this one?” the 81-year-old then asked, with The Independent claiming that Sir Rod remained seated for the rest of the show.

Advertisement

HuffPost UK has contacted the Maggie May singer’s team for comment.

Sir Rod has not commented on the incident directly, but on Sunday, he did share a social media update for Father’s Day on Sunday night, depicting himself, his wife Penny Lancaster and his children.

“Proud to be their father,” he wrote in the picture’s caption.

Advertisement

Last week, Sir Rod cancelled a show in California an hour before he was due to go on stage due to an “acute upper respiratory infection” which “resulted in laryngitis”.

“Following treatment, I’m feeling much better, but my voice is not,” he said at the time. “I’m very disappointed and sincerely apologise for any inconvenience to my fans.”

He later raised eyebrows when he posted footage of himself flying in a private jet to watch Scotland’s first World Cup game the morning after cancelling his show due to illness.

Sir Rod is currently in the middle of his One Last Time tour, which includes dates across the US.

Advertisement

During an interview on TalkSport last month, the Grammy winner teased that he’d be touring the UK in 2027, including a show at London’s O2 Arena, “and that’ll probably be it, I think”.

He previously announced in 2024 that he was finished with “large-scale world tours”, but maintained he had “no desire to retire”.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Minister Sparks Debate By Suggesting New PM Should Trigger General Election

Published

on

Minister Sparks Debate By Suggesting New PM Should Trigger General Election

A minister is facing some backlash after insisting a change in party leader should legally trigger a general election.

The Home Office’s Mike Tapp said such legislation would “stop the constant churn” of prime ministers in Downing Street.

In a post on X, the minister wrote: “Is it time to legislate; if a change of leader is forced by its own Party then a General Election must be called.

“That would stop the constant churn and focus all politicians on delivery, instead of work place politics.

Advertisement

“These endless ‘house of cards’ games would end and the country would benefit. Let’s legislate to focus minds.”

His remarks come as his boss Keir Starmer is widely expected to resign as early as this morning – which would be the UK would be moving onto its seventh prime minister in the last decade.

The PM appears to have lost the support of much of his party after more than 100 Labour MPs and a handful of his own ministers urged him to step down.

Andy Burnham, the outgoing Greater Manchester mayor, has long had his eyes on No.10 and won the Makerfield by-election on Thursday.

Advertisement

He is thought to have the support of the required 81 Labour MPs needed to formally challenge Starmer’s leadership once he is sworn into the Commons this afternoon.

But Tapp’s suggestion to introduce a general election whenever there is a new party leader at the top of government received a mixed reaction, to say the least.

Fellow Labour MP Josh Fenton-Glynn wrote on X: “Mike Tapp appears surprised that we are a parliamentary democracy!

“The last two prime ministers to win an election then lose their job at the next election were Major and Wilson – course correction mid term in response to the public is the norm not the exception.”

Advertisement

Other social media users were split over whether this was a good plan.

Tapp later responded to the backlash, writing on X: “I’m pleased to see the debate, at least here on X, has begun. We cannot continue as we are.

“There are many nuances to this but at the core we must remember that as politicians we are here to serve the country – and 6 (possibly 7) PMs in 10 years is unsustainable.

Advertisement

“We need to find a better balance and this conversation is important.”

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

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Jeremy Clarkson Confirms Prostate Cancer Is Now In Remission

Published

on

Jeremy Clarkson Confirms Prostate Cancer Is Now In Remission

Jeremy Clarkson has disclosed that he is now in remission after undergoing treatment for prostate cancer.

He was seen telling colleagues Kaleb Cooper and Charlie Ireland: “I disappeared off the other week and I had a biopsy, and it is cancer, and it’s aggressive, but it’s really early.”

Clarkson then shared that his treatment had gone a little “awry”, saying from hospital: “I’m going to be here for a little while. I don’t know what’s going to happen.

“What I wanted to say was that if this is all successful, I’ll see you in season six. And if it isn’t, I won’t… Take care, everyone.”

Advertisement

Over the weekend, Clarkson shared a video on Instagram, in which he told his followers: “The more observant among you will have noticed that I’m not dead. And I’m not just ‘not dead’, I’m perfectly fine.”

He continued: “The reason why I’m fine is because the doctors caught the prostate cancer early. And they caught it early because I got tested. Now, I know a lot of you will say, ‘oh, I don’t want to be tested because it means someone will have to put their finger in me’, but it’s just a blood test these days.”

Encouraging those watching to get tested, he pointed out that “10 or 12 thousand people – men, to be honest – die every year in the UK from prostate cancer”.

“Don’t be one of them,” he insisted. “Get tested!”

Advertisement

In an interview with The Times, Clarkson also confirmed his cancer is in remission.

He explained: “It was an aggressive type of cancer. It could have spread, it could have gone into the pancreas, it could have gone anywhere, and that would have been trouble.

Clarkson continued: “I have to say to everybody who’s reading this, please, please, please go and get checked.

“It’s not uncomfortable, it’s not undignified. And it’s a no-brainer. I did, and that’s why I’m sitting here talking to you 11 months down the line.”

Advertisement

A sixth season of Clarkson’s Farm has also been confirmed to be in the works in another social media video, in which the host conceded it had been “a bit of a year” for him.

“I am delighted to tell you that season six of Clarkson’s Farm is currently being filmed,” he said. ”It’s in production.

“And that’s particularly good news for me because… well, if you know, you know. And if you don’t know, you need to watch season five.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Ex-Trump Defence Secretary Admits He Has ‘Serious’ Questions And Concerns About Iran Deal

Published

on

Ex-Trump Defence Secretary Admits He Has 'Serious' Questions And Concerns About Iran Deal

President Donald Trump’s former Defence Secretary Mark Esper says he has “serious” questions and concerns about the preliminary US-Iran agreement signed by Trump.

Appearing Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, host Garrett Haake directly asked Esper if he supports the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran.

“Well, look, I like the fact that we’ve extended the ceasefire,” Esper replied. “I like the fact that the strait is being opened up, that will provide economic relief to a lot of people, and I like the fact that we’re getting into nuclear talks. But that said, when I look at the MOU, there are many of the points that I have serious questions about and concerns about.”

Noting that “in many ways it’s a wait and see,” he continued, “My principle concern has been that it appears that too many of the incentives in my view have been given up front instead of later in the deal when we’ve seen much more progress on the nuclear aspects of whatever potential agreement comes from this.”

Advertisement

Haake then questioned Esper over whether he thinks the Trump administration has been “too trusting of the Iranians” regarding negotiations.

“Well, I don’t believe so. You know, you look at many of the players on the team, they’re experienced in foreign policy for some time. I don’t think they trust the Iranians. Nobody trusts the Iranians. I think they put a deal on the table. I think as the vice president said, ‘Let’s give it a shot and see if it works,’ and in that regard I’d say, ‘Yeah, there’s a lot more of this football game to play out.’”

Haake went on to mention that it’s still not totally clear if the strait is open or closed before asking Esper if he thinks that makes the agreement “worthless” if Iran can still open and shut the strait or charge fees on it.

Esper said that would “clearly” suggest a “strategic setback.”

Advertisement

“We cannot allow the Iranians to control the Strait of Hormuz … and that’s why I say this needs to play out. And, you know, there’s been some suggestions that there have been side agreements, or gentlemen’s agreements, we need to know what those are. But I think we need to let this play out a little bit and see what actually happens with regard to the strait after the 60 days.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Haake asked if Esper trusts that the president is being given advice by “people who think their loyalty is to the Constitution.”

“I don’t see that the president is always getting good advice, and so I think that’s the question to ask. I think Republicans on Capitol Hill have asked that same question. Is the president getting the best advice with regard to these strategic matters?”

Esper’s remarks came following conflicted messaging from the Trump administration last week about the agreement being reached and when the text of the memorandum would be released.

Advertisement

The memorandum was reportedly signed Wednesday by Trump, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and the prime minister of Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance said Sunday there is an opportunity to “turn over a new leaf” with Iran as both sides held talks in Switzerland to build out the shaky interim deal to end the war in Iran after Tehran said it closed the Strait of Hormuz because of Israel’s attacks in Lebanon.

Watch Esper’s appearance on “Meet the Press” below. Skip to the 0:15 mark to hear Esper’s comments.

Advertisement

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

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home | The gambling sector’s unlicensed market claims don’t match the evidence

Published

on

The gambling sector’s unlicensed market claims don't match the evidence
The gambling sector’s unlicensed market claims don't match the evidence

The deaths of Ollie Long and Ellen Mulvey expose the dangers of illegal gambling sites. Derek Webb argues that new evidence challenges widely repeated claims about the size and drivers of Britain’s unlicensed gambling market

Two recent inquests have exposed the most disturbing consequences of Britain’s illegal online gambling market. This year coroners concluded that gambling disorder contributed to the suicides of Ollie Long and Ellen Mulvey, two people who had actively tried to escape gambling but ended up on illegal sites.

Advertisement

Both had first become addicted through legal online casinos and had tried to quit by using the self-exclusion tool GamStop. Nearly 700,000 people struggling with gambling harm have signed up to GamStop, which blocks access to any legal British gambling site. Yet illegal casinos deliberately use “casinos not on GamStop” as a marketing tool, luring people such as Ellen and Ollie back into harm.

A new research report prepared this month by the intelligence platform Gaming Compliance International (GCI) for my Campaign for Fairer Gambling shows that both the regulated and unregulated online gambling sectors grew between 2024 and 2025. The regulated market remains overwhelmingly dominant, accounting for around 91 per cent of online gambling revenue, while the unregulated sector accounts for less than 9 per cent.

This data also suggests that casino-style gaming, rather than betting, is the main driver in the unregulated sector, with 75 per cent of unregulated gambling revenue coming from gaming products. This challenges trade claims that affordability checks on sports and racing bettors are the main drivers of illegal market growth.

Advertisement

The scale of the problem has also been exaggerated. If we consider the whole GB gambling market including land-based and the lottery, the illegal portion equates to only around 4 per cent. Excluding underage and self-excluded gamblers reduces it to less than 2 per cent. That is smaller than the gambling market in Northern Ireland, despite the province having no dedicated regulator and outdated gambling laws.

It is therefore fascinating that an All-Party Parliamentary Group for Action Against Illegal Gambling has just been set up. Vice-chairs Esther McVey MP and Neil CoyleMP, aided by secretariat Jordan Lea of Deal Me Out, have an opportunity to prove to be reliable independent voices by avoiding parroting the trade lines. 

Despite the attention illegal casinos receive, the reality is that Britain still has one of the smallest unregulated online gambling sectors of any major jurisdiction globally. Trade voices are forecasting that by 2028 unregulated turnover will reach £33bn and present this as an existential threat to the regulated sector.

But turnover is not revenue. My campaign to reduce the stakes of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) resulted in a turnover decrease of £25bn in the first year (2019-20) but a much smaller revenue decrease of £750m. Those opposing that harm reduction move forecast that betting shop numbers would decline to 4,500. There are still over 5,600 betting shops, despite the pandemic and bookies pushing conversion from land-based to online.

Advertisement

The Treasury has awarded the Gambling Commission £26m to tackle illegal gambling. No longer led by Andrew Rhodes, who has left to become a gambling sector adviser, the Commission is using the funds to establish an illegal gambling task force under DCMS whose membership remains secret.

Mr Rhodes and other executives at the Commission have a history of attending and speaking at trade events where many of the participants are unlicenced operators and suppliers, or representatives of jurisdictions hosting those unlicenced sites.

So many people, including parliamentarians, worked so hard to get the Conservatives’ Gambling White Paper done, but DCMS delegated some projects to the Commission. If the Commission had been less friendly to the gambling sector in the resulting consultations, would Mr Rhodes have been as welcome in his new role?

Despite their expertise, GCI is not on the task force, and neither is Gamban, the premier self-exclusion tool. Gamban can block both legal and illegal sites from all devices when activated, but was recently refused funding under DHSC from the £120m per year statutory levy, raising questions about DHSC oversight in that process.

Advertisement

The task force should start by asking why many illegal sites are still accessible from Britain despite being known to DCMS. It should also look into whether companies licensed by the Commission are in business relationships with illegal sites.

It is the same addictive content on illegal sites as on legal ones. Illegal electronic roulette is still electronic roulette. Changing a name from Super Silly Slots to Silly Super Slots does not change the games.* Gamblers have no guarantee that the games are fair, winnings will be paid or deposits will be protected.

The deaths of Ollie Long and Ellen Mulvey should change the conversation. We need to move on from abstract discussions about “safer” or “protected” gambling. The same marketing techniques and algorithms operate across both sectors. The totality of harm is greater in the regulated sector, which remains the primary gateway to illegal gambling. Any serious strategy to reduce harm must acknowledge that reality.

* Game names invented for illustrative purposes

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

David Davies: Let’s champion Defence industry workers because the Welsh Government doesn’t

Published

on

David TC Davies was Secretary of State for Wales from 2022 to 2024. He was the Member of Parliament for Monmouth from 2005 to 2024 and previously sat in the Welsh Assembly.

Communities across Wales and the United Kingdom are marking Armed Forces Day.

We rightly pay tribute to the men and women of His Majesty’s Armed Forces, who stand ready to defend our country, often at great personal sacrifice.

But there is another group of people who are crucial to the defence of our nation, who rarely receive the recognition they deserve. I refer to the thousands of workers who design and build the weapons and equipment that keep our service personnel and all of us safe.

Advertisement

As a Welsh politician, I am very conscious of their contribution because the defence sector is vital to the Welsh economy. Global companies such as BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Airbus, Raytheon and Babcock all have a significant presence in Wales. But there are also dozens of smaller firms further down the supply chain, employing a highly skilled workforce.

I recently visited Sierra Nevada Corporation Mission Systems in South Wales, one of a number of companies based in Wales and developing advanced defence technology. Not far away is IrvinGQ, which manufactures parachutes used by the British Armed Forces and allied nations around the world. Remarkably, much of the highly skilled work involved in manufacturing these life-saving products is still carried out by hand.

These are highly skilled jobs that support families and communities across Wales, yet too often the people who work in the defence sector are treated as though there is something morally questionable about what they do.

Last year, I discovered that the Welsh Government-owned Development Bank of Wales was explicitly stating on its website that it would not provide funding to defence companies. Following my intervention, that wording was removed, but I never received a satisfactory explanation as to why it had appeared there in the first place. The message seemed to be that building the equipment used by those defending our democracy is somehow less worthy than other forms of manufacturing.

Advertisement

That attitude still exists in some political circles. We now have a Plaid Cymru Government in Wales. One of their Ministers, Heledd Fychan, previously criticised Welsh Government attendance at a major international defence exhibition, describing it as a “contemptible event”. Another Plaid Senedd Member publicly called for the arms industry to be “moved out of Wales”.

Others are demanding that pension funds withdraw investment from the very companies that equip our Armed Forces.

Plaid Cymru politicians are entitled to hold those views. But they should also understand the consequences. Our Armed Forces cannot defend Britain, with slogans, and protest banners.

But if we expect our servicemen and women to defend our country, we must also be willing to support the industries that equip them. We cannot send them into war zones armed with pea shooters and bows and arrows.

Advertisement

They need advanced aircraft, precision-guided weapons, armoured vehicles and the countless other technologies that modern warfare demands.

Some politicians want to be seen celebrating Armed Forces Day while remaining hostile towards the people who make the equipment our Armed Forces rely upon every day. This could most kindly be described as inconsistent.

I am proud of Wales’s defence industry and the thousands of Welsh workers whose skills help keep Britain safe. I will continue visiting defence companies across Wales and championing the contribution they make to our economy and national security.

At a time when international instability is increasing, we should be cheering on our defence companies, not undermining them. And if the UK Government finally wakes up to the scale of the geopolitical challenges we face and increases defence spending, Wales must receive its fair share of that investment.

Advertisement

It is pointless to champion the men and women of His Majesty’s Armed Forces if we are not also willing to champion those who provide them with the equipment they need to fight and win.

A strong Britain requires strong armed forces and strong armed forces require a strong defence industry.

Wales has every reason to be proud of the role it plays in both.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025