Politics
Thousands of customers ‘furious’ at Pret in frankenchicken backlash
Activists celebrated Pret A Manger’s 40th birthday by dumping a 6 foot birthday card filled with angry messages from customers outside its HQ. In the past four weeks, Pret has received 2,200 comments on its social media accounts about “frankenchickens” amidst the ongoing animal welfare controversy.
The backlash follows Pret’s decision earlier this year to push back its 2018 commitment deadline to stop using fast-growing chicken breeds from 2026 to 2032 – a 14-year delay from its original commitment.
No progress at Pret
Compassion in World Farming’s Chickentrack confirms Pret has made 0% progress on phasing out frankenchickens.
Campaigners argue that Pret is ‘ignoring’ its customers’ concerns, as the high-end chain hasn’t replied to a single comment criticising its stance. 74,000 people have signed a pledge to take a break from Pret until it delivers on its promise to stop selling fast-growing breeds of chicken, known as frankenchickens.
Connor Jackson, chief executive of Anima, said:
The fact that Pret appears to be abandoning their responsibilities to animal welfare has rightly shocked customers. And now they appear to be ignoring customers as well. Understandably, I think this silence has only strengthened people’s concern and anger.
Campaigners from Anima have taken a car-sized, animatronic frankenchicken replica to Pret stores across London. The group has protested at 60 individual Pret stores since the campaign began.
Fast-growing “frankenchickens”, bred to reach slaughter weight in just 35 days, can suffer chronic pain, deformities and heart failure as their bodies struggle to keep pace with their engineered growth rate.
Around 1.1 billion are reared for slaughter in the UK each year, and the RSPCA has named fast-growing broiler breeds the most serious animal welfare problem in the country.
The Anima campaign has drawn support from broadcaster and naturalist Chris Packham, who has criticised the reversal of Pret’s pledge.
Meanwhile, Project Slingshot, a campaign backed by Joanna Lumley, Paul McCartney, and comedians including Sara Pascoe, Diane Morgan and Kerry Godliman, is running parallel London Underground advertising highlighting the suffering of fast-growing chickens and criticising Pret on social media and on its website.
Anima says it will continue to campaign about Pret until the company commits to a credible, near-term plan to transition away from fast-growing breeds.
Featured image via Anima
By The Canary
Northumbria Police have charged Reform councillor Glenn Gibbins. Gibbins attracted attention over his comments relating to Nigerian people, with this controversy having now led to the police’s involvement:
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) July 29, 2026
BREAKING: A Reform UK councillor in Sunderland has been charged with posting a grossly offensive comment after writing in 2024 that Nigerians should be melted down to fill in potholes pic.twitter.com/hNcf8QUIQk
Reform’s Glenn Gibbins
Gibbins successfully ran to become a Reform councillor in May this year. Reform subsequently suspended Gibbins while they investigated the controversial comments, reinstating him in June. Now, Northumbria Police have released the following statement:
A man has been charged with posting a grossly offensive comment on social media.
Glenn Gibbins, a councillor for Sunderland City Council, has been charged with the offence under the Communications Act 2003.
The charge is in relation to a post from 2024 which referenced the Nigerian community.
We received a report in relation to the post in May this year and carried out an investigation. The Force submitted a file to the Crown Prosecution Service, who subsequently authorised the charge.
The 66-year-old, from the Sunderland area, is due to appear before South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court next month.
We are aware there has already been significant interest in relation to this individual and the social media post and we’d urge people not to speculate both online and in the community in relation to this case.
A Reform UK spokesperson has since said:
The party is aware of the situation involving Cllr Gibbins. We will monitor the verdict closely
Featured image via the Canary
By Willem Moore
The UK’s new fund for investing in AI ventures does zero due diligence on whether companies receiving cash use copyrighted work without permission. The revelation comes after a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests by Ed Newton-Rex. Rex is chief executive of ‘Fairly Trained‘, which checks and certifies AI companies’ use of data for training their models.
UK ‘Sovereign AI fund’
In fact, Newton-Rex had to use three FOI requests to praise the admission out of the government. Disgraced former PM Keir Starmer handed the reins of the half-billion pound fund to the daughter-in-law of his idol Tony Blair.
Newton-Rex notes that, at first, the fund claimed it “considered” copyright compliance. However, when he then FOI’d the documents relating to the process, the fund had to admit that it had no such process. Instead, it claimed this is done by the government’s British Business Bank:
I asked what their criteria were when selecting companies to back, particularly regarding copyright. They said “copyright compliance is considered as part of legal execution, including as part of a typical representations, warranties and disclosure process.”
So I asked for the docs they used as part of that “representations, warranties and disclosure process”, so that I could see what they said about copyright. They said they had no such documents, and that the British Business Bank actually carried out the the representations, disclosures and warranties process on their behalf.
But when he asked the Bank for the documentation it uses in that process, it denied doing anything of the sort:
So I asked the British Business Bank for the docs they use in that process. But they replied saying they do no such thing, not for Sov AI or anyone – they let the commercial lead investor sort the reps and warranties.
What does this mean? It means the Sov AI fund is allocating taxpayer money to AI companies without checking whether they train on copyrighted work without permission.
As Newton-Rex pointed out, investing in banks that use copyrighted materials without permission is illegal under UK law:
Why does this matter? Two reasons:
1. I can’t believe the government would actively want to invest in companies that use the copyrighted work of British creatives without permission. Doing so is (i) illegal in the UK, (ii) possibly illegal elsewhere, and (iii) clearly antithetical to protecting its citizens and treating them fairly.
2. There are already signs that companies Sov AI has backed may be planning to do exactly this – e.g. Cosine, which has publicly said it plans to train on datasets that are known to contain copyrighted work.
If Sov AI is going to continue investing UK taxpayers’ money in AI companies, it is imperative that it introduces simple due diligence into whether companies exploit creatives’ work without permission. This would involve virtually no additional overhead, and would help ensure their investments align with the interests of the British public.
Lawless AI
The revelations come as the AI industry has been exposed as buying up huge numbers of irreplaceable rare books, then destroying them after scanning in order to monopolise their information. It comes as the UK government continues to massively expand AI-driven facial recognition around the country with no mandate to do so. And as the US and Israel use AI to drive the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians.
It also comes as experts warn that AI-triggered economic collapse is inevitable if AI companies continue behaving as they have been. There is no sign of change — and no sign that the UK government is even interested in trying to rein in their excesses and abuses.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
US President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale is overseeing an Israeli influence operation. Drop Site News reported that the operation is training bots to embellish fake claims that Palestinian journalists are linked to terrorism. The story has sparked debate about israel’s approach to using new technologies in information warfare.
The campaign has even tried to muddy the waters around the Israeli military’s murder of Palestinian child Hind Rajab. The operation aims to shape the views not of humans, but of the AI chatbots that people increasingly turn to for ‘corroborating’ information.
Drop Site reported on 28 July:
The key intended audience of these sites is not concerned Americans, it’s not even humans—most of the sites average a few hundred unique visitors each month.
Instead, Parscale and his firm, Clock Tower X, created them as part of a $46.5 million contract with the Israeli government to try and influence artificial intelligence-powered chatbots, tools like Claude or ChatGPT.
The process is known as Large Language Model (LLM) Poisoning. Drop Site reported:
In his initial agreement with Israel, Parscale said that he would deploy “websites and content to deliver GPT framing results on GPT conversations” as part of the contract.
More recently, his team even told Axios they are “seeing success” at getting popular AI systems to incorporate information from their sites, though they declined to provide data.
Even more chillingly, the outlet said, the multi-million dollar scam “is working”.
Disinformation experts reviewed:
a Drop Site analysis of chatbot queries and training data.
They found:
tens of millions of Americans who use chatbots are increasingly likely to receive answers manipulated by Parscale on behalf of the Israeli government.
Drop Site asked Parscale-run search engines about things like whether US backing of Israel benefited America. The answer was invariably yes.
The outlet said:
All of Parscale’s websites contain a statement at the bottom which states “this material is distributed by Clock Tower X LLC on behalf of the State of Israel.” This statement is a mandatory disclosure requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
The US-based website added:
Despite this, when Drop Site asked prominent chatbots about the latest news from Paxpoint.org, Perplexity and Copilot did not flag that the site was created as part of an Israeli influence operation. Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini did flag the caveat.
Disinformation expert Alice Lee told Drop Site the Israeli networks compared to Russian disinformation in interesting ways:
While Russia’s Pravda network overall is far larger, Parscale’s sites have a far higher rate of successfully being archived.
As the Canary reported on January:
half of all political accounts linked to Israel social media are bots. This includes many of the accounts boosting posts by Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his terrorist government.
Parscale is also linked to a firm which will be familiar to UK readers. Drop Site said:
Parscale, who gained national attention as Trump’s campaign manager for hiring the controversial microtargetting firm Cambridge Analytica, is the largest recipient of Israel’s massive influence investment.
Cambridge Analytica was the US and UK dark money-backed influence operation which shaped narratives around, for example, the 2016 Brexit referendum.
There was a time when Trump and his allies endlessly talked about ‘fake news’. To some degree they still do. But the truth is they are some of the most venomous purveyors of garbage information around, as well as major beneficiaries of the fact-free ‘mirror world’ they’ve created.
Featured image via the Canary
By Joe Glenton
US diplomats staged a walkout of a UN meeting over French dignitaries’ criticisms of the Trump administration’s human rights record.
Which is, you know, completely accurate considering the kidnap of president Maduro, strikes against civilian vessels, and unlawful imprisonment (and murder) under ICE, to name but a few.
‘Forced labour’ tariffs
The ridiculous walkout stunt, which took place during a security council meeting on 27 July, was part of an ongoing feud between the two countries’ delegations.
Several days beforehand, on 23 July, the Trump administration announced massive tariffs on more than 80 countries. In effect, these reinstated the previous tariffs struck down by the US Supreme Court.
Seemingly in place of a rationale, US trade representative Jamieson Greer accused the countries, including the UK and the whole EU, of using forced labour. Greer praised US efforts in policing its forced-labour ban, and stated that:
It’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same.
International Twitter beef
The very next day, the Trump administration set its sights on the UN’s human rights record. In particular, the US criticised the reinstatement of human rights chief Volker Türk for a second term.
.@AmbUNReform: The UN human rights system has been losing credibility for decades.
Volker Türk led it to its deathbed. Today’s vote kicked the bucket. pic.twitter.com/9yBB516mAp
— U.S. Mission to the UN (@USUN) July 24, 2026
Of course, the US delegation’s dislike for Türk is unsurprising — he’s been a vocal critic of America’s recent human rights record. This included a March statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva:
We have enjoyed bipartisan support from the U.S. on human rights over many decades … I am now deeply worried by the fundamental shift in direction that is taking place domestically and internationally.
Policies intended to protect people from discrimination are now labelled as discriminatory…Divisive rhetoric is being used to distort, deceive and polarize. This is generating fear and anxiety among many,
The UN’s legitimacy deficit
In response to the US criticism of the UN’s rights record and its chief, the French Geneva Mission took to social media. On 25 July, it posted:
The US used to be a beacon of human rights. Not anymore. Today, it stands alongside North Korea, Nicaragua, Mali & Russia, isolated. And the world no longer listens to it.#AmericaAlone https://t.co/GLNMsYEH9n pic.twitter.com/UTVvljTMeO
— France ONU Genève
(@FranceONUGeneve) July 25, 2026
That reference to “North Korea, Nicaragua, Mali & Russia” named four of the nine countries which joined the US in voting against Türk’s re-appointment. Meanwhile, 144 countries voted in favour, with 13 abstentions.
Continuing the Twitter feud, Mike Waltz — the US ambassador to the UN — posted:
It is disappointing – though not surprising – that this is how France deflects on its shameful vote to coddle some of the worst human rights abusers.
France voted for someone who has been lecturing, free, sovereign democracies like the United States, the UK, and Israel, while… https://t.co/m6zxE95d5l
— Ambassador Mike Waltz (@USAmbUN) July 26, 2026
Professionalism? Never heard of her
Then, during Monday’s security council meeting, ostensibly to discuss Russia’s war on Ukraine, the US wasted time by choosing to criticise France in person. US deputy ambassador Dan Negrea called his country a “beacon of liberty for the world”, adding:
As such, we will not be affording them the benefit of listening to their politicized drivel until they renounce their condescending and disrespectful rhetoric and behave in a manner commensurate with their seat on this council.
Because bringing your Twitter beef to an unrelated UN meeting and then storming out just screams ‘fitting behaviour for a security council seat’.
But then, that really is typical of the Trump administration all over, isn’t it? These overgrown children have become used to being able to bribe, bully and threaten anyone in the US so that they get their own way.
Then, as soon as they’re confronted with a modicum of pushback outside of their safe American bubble, they simply have no comeback but to splutter and bolt for the exit.
This entire debacle would almost be laughable, were it not that these same pampered, snivelling wastes of space control one of the most powerful militaries on Earth.
Featured image via the Canary
By Grace
It was during the Great Depression that then US president Franklin D Roosevelt coined the phrase the ‘first 100 days’. In a national radio address three months into his presidency in 1933, he summarised all the New Deal measures already introduced. Since then, ‘the first 100 days’ has been considered a temporal benchmark to assess the impact of a new leader.
Although UK prime minister Andy Burnham still has 90 days to go, is there anything we can discern just from his first 10 days? This might seem premature. But the state of the nation is so dire, and the record of recent administrations so damaging, that a truly transformative government would need to show a genuinely fresh approach from day one.
For too long, the UK has had a series of technocratic, managerial administrations. A feature uniting them all has been a dishonesty about the tough choices required to escape the country’s plight, particularly the ravaged state of the public finances. This hasn’t been their only failing, or even their worst. While engineering a spiral of indebtedness and low growth, they have demonstrated a scepticism for democracy that borders on contempt. Shielded by the belief that ‘they know best’, governments increasingly treat the electorate as a problem to be ‘managed’, rather than the only source of their authority.
Despite his ebullience, the early signs that Burnham can confront this economic and political decay are bleak. His empathetic air certainly contrasts sharply with the woodenness of his predecessor. But a kinder style is no substitute for honesty. There are difficult choices ahead. They will hit Burnham sooner or later – as they have all of his recent predecessors.
Burnham’s willingness to be honest with the public will be his first and arguably his most critical test. He has promised to lead a ‘cost of living’ government, but shows no signs of understanding the real causes of the financial pressures people are facing. These pressures come not from rapidly rising prices, but from stalling incomes: wages are stagnant, and have been since the 2008 financial crash. The government’s forecasting body, the Office for Budget Responsibility, predicts that real disposable income per person will flatline, growing a mere half a percent a year for the rest of this decade. This is less than a quarter of the average rate of growth from the mid-1950s to 2007.
There can be no doubt that the UK is in a uniquely deep rut. The latest official figures report that labour productivity at the start of this year is actually below where it was four years earlier. In the whole period since 2008, productivity is up only six-and-a-half per cent. During the 20th century, that modest gain – made over nearly two decades – used to be achieved in three average years.
The truth is that there will be no national economic renewal – never mind Burnham’s promise of ‘good growth in every postcode’ – without significant reform. The priorities for any government must be ending the handouts that are protecting unproductive jobs, curbing the ballooning spending on welfare and health, and easing planning and regulation red tape to allow the construction of homes, infrastructure and 21st-century workplaces.
If his first 10 days are anything to go by, Burnham is out of his depth. In his first Downing Street speech, the new PM pledged to ‘put the care of people at the heart of everything I do’. But a caring manner is not what makes a government effective. It certainly won’t allow Burnham to bend the laws of economics by subsidising people’s living costs without a growing economy. Even his second-day announcement of cutting VAT on household electricity bills falls well short of his benevolent claim to ‘put more money in people’s pockets’. Burnham’s lordly almsgiving amounts to less than a pound a week for the average household, and it won’t offset the rise in energy costs already expected by this October.
We must also beware the empathetic ruler who says he knows what’s best for ‘ordinary people’. On day four, Burnham promised to save the pub by offering business-rates relief. This would be paid for by extra taxes on high street businesses that, in his view, ‘cause social harm’. The prime minister highlighted vape shops and gambling arcades as such ‘harmful’ businesses. In other words, he will decide what is good and bad for us.
Economic stagnation is one problem. The perilous state of the public finances is another. Britain’s debt level is fast approaching the equivalent of one year’s economic output. With a return to positive interest rates at the end of 2023, the cost of servicing existing debt is mounting. In fact, if debt servicing were a government department, it would be the second largest – exceeded only by health and social care. Now, one in every £12 the government spends is just to pay the interest on its accumulated debt.
Not only is debt not being paid down, but most of the new borrowing is also devoted just to paying the interest charges on past debt. Interest payments absorbed about six in every seven pounds of borrowing this year, exacerbating an unsustainable spiral.
Burnham says he intends to meet costly commitments on defence, social care and public housing. But he hasn’t explained how he can do this without stemming planned hikes in spending on welfare and health. Without economic growth or substantial budget cuts, Burnham’s spending promises could only be funded by extra borrowing or higher taxes. So far, then, new leader, same reliance on tax-and-borrow to pay for a society debilitated by handouts.
Whatever Burnham might, or might not, do about the public finances in the longer term raises the third critical test: his democratic mandate. He has promised ‘the most significant change moment in our politics for 40 years’, while simultaneously saying he would stick to Labour’s 2024 manifesto. He can’t do both. Initiating an extensive political and economic transformation of the country, as he has implied, is incompatible with the existing manifesto policies. Such a revolution must surely have the consent of the people.
If Burnham is to stay true to his day one pledge to ‘bring forward a new plan for Britain, a 10-year plan’, then he should already be preparing the country, and his party, for a General Election around it. For democracy to function, as well as for practical reasons, he should let it be known that he and his cabinet will campaign for this plan to secure support for it at the ballot box.
But this appears to be wishful thinking. In his first BBC interview as prime minister, Burnham explicitly ruled out an early General Election. The new, caring prime minister prides himself on being a ‘people’s person’ – but that clearly doesn’t even extend to listening to the current polls, which indicate that about half the adult population want an immediate election (compared to a third that don’t). At this stage, it seems that Burnham has no such plan for change, despite insisting he was ready to govern.
By the time his premiership reaches the famous 100-day benchmark, Burnham might yet confound current expectations. But he needs to move quickly. He can start with being honest with people about the tough choices ahead, weaning his government off its tax-and-borrowing dependency, and submitting his ideas to the judgement of the electorate.
If the first 10 days are anything to go by, Britain is in trouble. New leader, new manager – and the same social and economic quagmire.
Phil Mullan is the author of Beyond Confrontation: Globalists, Nationalists and Their Discontents.
The North Yorkshire and South Durham Cricket League has been pushed into the spotlight. This happened after a Division Two match between Saltburn Cricket Club and Norton Cricket Club produced one of the strangest amateur cricket controversies of the summer.
A fielder is accused of clicking his fingers at slip to mimic the sound of an edge, allegedly influencing umpires into giving batters out. The incident, captured on video and shared widely across social media, has triggered a formal investigation. It has also raised questions about conduct, gamesmanship and the boundaries of fair play at grassroots level.
The clip, filmed during Saturday’s fixture, shows a Saltburn fielder positioned at slip as the ball passes the bat. As it travels through to the wicketkeeper, the fielder appears to click his fingers at the exact moment the ball goes by.
Saltburn’s wicket keeper then completes a routine catch behind the stumps. The team appeals, and the umpire gives the batter out. Within days, the footage had gone viral, approaching five million views by Tuesday lunchtime and drawing global attention to a league more accustomed to quiet weekends and local rivalries.
Cricket league responds
The North Yorkshire and South Durham Cricket League confirmed it had received a formal complaint regarding the alleged incidents. In a short statement, the league said a full investigation had been initiated. Furthermore, no further comment would be made until the process was complete.
It is standard protocol for the league to withhold detailed comment during active investigations, but the speed of the response reflects the seriousness with which the matter is being treated.
Saltburn Cricket Club has been contacted for comment by Sky Sports News. As of the time of publication, no public statement has been issued by the club. The league’s involvement means the matter will now move through established disciplinary channels. This will include evidence review, witness statements and potential hearings if required.
Saltburn’s season in context
Saltburn currently sit top of the Division Two table, having won 10 of their 15 matches. Their wicketkeeper has been a standout performer, leading the league in fielding dismissals with 34—31 of those catches behind the stumps. Earlier in July, he took eight catches in a 22‑run win over Shildon Railway Cricket Club. This performance underlined his importance to Saltburn’s campaign.
The team’s strong season adds another layer to the controversy. Success often brings scrutiny, and the viral clip has prompted questions about whether the alleged finger‑clicking was an isolated moment or part of a pattern. The league’s investigation will aim to establish exactly that.
Allegations of previous incidents
After the video gained traction online, Middlesbrough second XI captain Rory Cotterill alleged that similar incidents occurred during his side’s match against Saltburn in June. Cotterill’s comments, made publicly after the clip surfaced, suggest that concerns about the behaviour may have existed before the viral moment. His claims are now part of the wider conversation surrounding the investigation, though they remain allegations until formally assessed by the league.
The suggestion of multiple incidents increases the significance of the inquiry. If the league determines that finger‑clicking was used deliberately to imitate edges, it would represent a clear breach of the spirit of cricket. It could also breach the laws of the game. The investigation will need to determine intent, frequency and impact.
How the clip spread
The video’s rapid spread across social media reflects the modern reality of amateur sport — every match, every moment, every appeal can be captured, shared and scrutinised. What might once have been a minor dispute between teams has become a global talking point. The clip’s near‑five‑million views by Tuesday lunchtime show how quickly unusual sporting moments can gain traction. This is especially true when they involve questions of fairness.
The footage itself is brief but striking. The timing of the finger-clicking appears deliberate, though only the investigation can determine intent. The wicketkeeper’s catch is clean, the appeal is immediate, and the umpire’s decision is swift. Without audio clarity, the clip relies on visual cues, but those cues have been enough to prompt widespread debate.
Implications for grassroots cricket
Grassroots cricket relies heavily on trust, sportsmanship and respect for the game’s traditions. Umpires at amateur level often operate without technology, without neutral appointments and without the support systems seen in professional cricket. They depend on honesty from players and clarity of sound and sight. Any attempt to manipulate those senses undermines the foundation of the sport.
The alleged finger‑clicking raises questions about how leagues can protect umpires and ensure fair play. While professional cricket has DRS, ball‑tracking and ultra‑edge, amateur cricket has none of those tools. It relies on players acting in good faith. If the investigation confirms wrongdoing, leagues may need to consider guidance or sanctions to deter similar behaviour.
Saltburn’s position
Saltburn’s league‑leading form means the investigation arrives at a delicate moment. The club has enjoyed a strong season, built on consistent performances and standout contributions from key players. The wicketkeeper’s exceptional catching record is a major part of that success. The club’s silence so far is understandable given the ongoing process, but the eventual findings could have implications for both individuals and the team.
The league’s statement emphasised that no further comment would be made until the investigation is complete. That suggests a thorough review is underway, likely involving video analysis, match reports and interviews with umpires and players from both teams.
What happens next
The investigation will determine whether disciplinary action is required. Possible outcomes range from no action to warnings, suspensions or points deductions, depending on the findings. The league has dealt with disciplinary matters before, but the viral nature of this incident means the spotlight is brighter than usual.
For now, the focus remains on establishing facts. The clip has sparked debate, but only the league’s formal process can deliver conclusions. Until then, speculation remains just that.
A small gesture, captured on a phone and shared online, has become a national talking point and triggered a formal investigation. Saltburn’s strong season, the wicketkeeper’s impressive record and the allegations of previous incidents all add layers to a story that will continue to unfold.
Grassroots cricket thrives on trust. The league’s investigation aims to protect that trust and ensure the game is played in the right spirit. Whatever the outcome, the incident has highlighted the importance of integrity at every level of the sport.
Featured image via the Canary
By Faz Ali
Andy Burnham is planning to finally implement the much-needed National Care Service (NCS). While it’s undeniable that we need this service, the question is what the NCS will be: a privatised mess like the NHS of today or a nationalised treasure like the NHS of the past?
With the finer details yet to be decided, now is the time for people to make their opinions known.
Andy Burnham has promised to bring in a new system of social care. But the government needs to address the desperately important issue of who owns and runs it.
Privatisation has been a failed — we’re paying more for worse care while private equity sharks walk away with huge… pic.twitter.com/FRY6naDOM9 — We Own It (@We_OwnIt) July 28, 2026
Burnham is keeping his promise so far
The Morning Star is among those calling for a fully nationalised care service, noting:
ANDY BURNHAM was urged today to prove to keep his vow to abandon 40 years of neoliberalism by legislating for a national care service before the end of this parliament.
Those calling for a fully public NCS also include Labour MP Clive Lewis, who said:
The extractive state vs the productive state:
The real litmus test for any essential public service is simple: who owns it?
Social care reform that ducks this question will repeat the mistakes of privatised water, haemorrhaging billions into management consultants, shareholder returns and financial extraction instead of frontline care.
The same story is playing out in children’s services. In just two years, care costs have risen by 37% to £3.7 billion. Private equity now dominates much of the sector. Firms buy up children’s homes, strip out costs, drive up prices and extract ever greater profits, while too many children’s needs go unmet.
That is the difference between an extractive state and a productive one. One channels public money into financial returns for the 1%. The other invests it in the 99% the service exists to support.
The New Economic Foundation has commented on the issues with private companies:
Rather than being used to improve services, this money is extracted.
We found that private care companies in three English regions had taken more than £250m in profits in just three years. Company directors earn 60 times more than the average wage. 2/3https://t.co/xqBLUvJ8GW
— NEF (@NEF) July 29, 2026
The Green Party is pushing for the full nationalisation of vital utilities and services, but Burnham has frozen them out of the cross-party discussions on care.
"Given our consistent engagement on the adult social care crisis and willingness to work together to solve it, it's deeply disappointing that the Greens weren't invited to today's cross-party talks.
We need all hands on deck to tackle this issue – the Greens remain ready to work… pic.twitter.com/5yICMR6whz — The Green Party (@TheGreenParty) July 29, 2026
The privatisation nightmare
Covering the problems that have arisen from NHS privatisation, We Own It has noted the following:
"The GP records of more than half the country sit on a system controlled by a firm whose business model is returns for investors, not care for patients, and the public found out after the fact."
And you thought Palantir's involvement in our healthcare was pretty dodgy…… pic.twitter.com/Rcg7O46nYx
— We Own It (@We_OwnIt) July 27, 2026
The new US-UK pharma deal could lead to 229,000 preventable deaths.
How? It will divert £45 billion from patient care to pharma corporation profits.
Can you help keep the pressure on Andy Burnham to rip it up?
Sign the petition: https://t.co/hIihU2FFwH pic.twitter.com/hHrn3rgUV7
— We Own It (@We_OwnIt) July 16, 2026
We Own It has also spoken out about Burnham’s stance on nationalisation:
The man set to be our next Prime Minister has gone on record as saying he wants to bring key utilities like energy and water into ‘public control’. But Andy Burnham hasn’t yet clarified what he’s proposing.
It’s certainly true that he hasn’t clarified what he has planned, but it seems almost certain it won’t be full re-nationalisation. Here’s what he said in June (emphasis added):
On utilities, we will ensure all parts of the UK are able to take greater public control of essential services like water, housing, energy and transport, learning from the model that has transformed our bus networks here in Greater Manchester.
The eagle-eyed among you will have spotted that ‘greater’ public control is not the same as ‘full’ public control; it’s privatisation with more oversight. As privatisation and regulatory oversight have repeatedly failed, we’re not optimistic that more of the thing which doesn’t work will solve anything.
We Own It continued:
Here’s the truth about public control that not enough people know about:
1) Public control is not public ownership. When it comes to water and energy, the ’public control’ that Burnham is promising already exists. It’s another word for regulation which has been failing households since water was privatised in 1989.
2) Privatisation is a waste of your money. Burnham can afford to deliver public ownership. How? He can force the companies – water, energy, Royal Mail – to deliver massive investment out of their own pockets or go bust. When they fail there is legislation he can use – the special administration regime – to protect the public interest and take them back without compensating shareholders. The truth is that bringing public services and assets into public ownership will save money and deliver a better deal.
Nationalisation is also massively popular with the public, as a YouGov poll showed.
‘Real control’
We Own It concluded:
Why should your household be a revenue stream for shareholders around the world? Andy Burnham’s popularity won’t last long unless he’s crystal clear that he will end the scam and deliver permanent public ownership for all our key public services and assets, including the NHS and care as well as our key utilities and infrastructure.
We deserve to own our public assets whether at the local, regional or national level, because owning is better than renting; ownership is the only way to get real control of our essential services.
Andy Burnham must pick a side and he can’t bring down your bills and improve your services unless he does.
The National Care Service is badly needed, sure, but so is full ownership of our sovereign assets. If Andy Burnham founds the NCS and it turns out to be yet another extractive nightmare, people won’t remember him as fondly as he hopes they will. And that’s the choice he has: becoming the new Clement Attlee or the new Margaret Thatcher.
Featured image via the Canary
By Willem Moore
Campaigners from Fossil Free London dressed as firefighters during a protest outside Shell HQ on 29 July. Meanwhile others poured a black liquid resembling oil over their heads.
Behind them placards read: “Shell Fuels Wildfires,” “Oil Fuels Wildfires,” and “Stop Pouring Oil on the Flames”.
The protest comes as Shell is announcing its quarterly profits on Thursday 30 July.
Meanwhile, more than 300,000 people have been forced to leave their homes as wildfires rage across Spain and France. Record-breaking heatwaves across Europe this summer are fuelling the fires.
A recent study found that the climate crisis enabled 55 out of the 213 global heatwaves that would have otherwise been impossible to occur between 2000 and 2023. Fossil fuels made all of these more likely and more intense.
They also found that just pollution from Shell alone made almost a quarter of these heatwaves 10,000 times more likely, and 51 of these heatwaves possible.
Robin Wells, spokesperson for Fossil Free London, said:
Fire needs fuel. And as we witness fires rage across Scotland, France and Spain, we all know those red and yellow flames are turbocharged by Shell’s oil.
For decades Shell covered up the science and continued to drill for the oil that makes wildfires more intense, last longer, and burn further. However the first ember hit the undergrowth in each place, it is Shell, and corporations like it, who set the tinder in place.
And as we witness one of the biggest evacuation efforts on the continent since World War Two, the heavy weight in our heart is the knowledge there’s so much more to come.
Stop pouring Shell’s oil onto this house, torn down by fire. People need to stop the harm and rebuild.
Andy Burnham and Miatta Fahnbulleh [Energy Security and Net Zero secretary] need to make clear now that protecting people from wildfires, drought, crop failures and heatwaves means stopping new oil. It means they must stop Rosebank.
Featured image via Fossil Free London
By The Canary
Another politician linked to Reform UK has become embroiled in a financial scandal. The MP had already self-suspended, though, so that should at least save Reform some time if things don’t go in his favour:
EXCL by @GeorgeGreenwood
Suspended Reform MP was blocked from winding up two companies — as they failed to repay *still* unexplained taxpayer-backed Covid loans.
James McMurdock has lashed out at scrutiny since Sunday Times posed Qs, but never explained pandemic debts. — Gabriel Pogrund (@Gabriel_Pogrund) July 28, 2026
Reform Covid loans
James McMurdock suspended himself in 2025 after questions emerged about the Covid loans. Now, the Times have revealed that the Department for Business and Trade blocked McMurdock from winding up the two companies linked to Covid loans. As they reported:
The “dissolution objections process” was introduced by the business department to reduce losses from misuse of bounceback loans by preventing borrowers from avoiding repayments by striking off their companies with outstanding debts.
Giving you an idea of why this was possible, a Covid counter fraud commissioner report from 2025 found:
around 70,000 businesses with outstanding Covid-19 loans placed in the dissolution objections process, many of whom would have committed fraud, possibly worth £0.9 billion, have since either repaid their loans or withdrawn their applications to dissolve
In this case, the Department for Business and Trade has confirmed that the issue was McMurdock not paying back his bounceback loans. In other words, if the department hadn’t blocked the winding up processes, McMurdock may have gotten away with not repaying the loan.
McMurdock responded to the Times with the following statement:
It is now a matter of public record that my businesses have been closed. I owe nothing. Not a penny. Not a bean. All former statements made by me relating to this matter remain true and correct. I would like to thank The Times and all other parties for giving me the opportunity to be vindicated… again.
This is far from the only financial scandal Reform is linked to anyway, with others including:
- Multiple investigations into a £5m ‘gift’ Farage received from a crypto billionaire.
- Accusations Farage is shilling for crypto on behalf of his donors.
- Questions over three houses Farage seemingly failed to declare.
- Failure to declare financial support from convicted fraudster Posh George in the run-up to the 2024 election.
McMurdock
The Covid bounceback loans aren’t the only scandal that McMurdock is linked to either, with the Times reporting:
The MP, who narrowly won his seat in 2024, came to national prominence when it emerged he had been convicted of assaulting his ex-girlfriend in 2006.
He had not publicly disclosed the conviction before he was elected, and played down the attack as a “teenage indiscretion” when details emerged in the weeks after the election.
In the same article, the Times suggest that McMurdock becoming an MP shows a problem with Reform’s vetting. As we’ve suggested elsewhere, however, we’re not sure that Reform’s vetting process is ‘failing’; it actually just seems like the party is willing to ignore certain things.
Reform candidate suggests ‘melting Nigerians’ to fill potholes
Featured image via the Canary
By Willem Moore
Donald Trump has suffered a huge and potentially crippling legal blow in his lawsuit against the BBC.
A US court has ordered Trump’s ‘revocable trust’, through which he owns most of his properties and businesses, to hand over more than three-and-a-half years’ of documents, including financial information.
The US president has only 10 days to comply.
Trump’s hubris has backfired
Commentators warned Trump, when he launched the lawsuit, that his attempt to sue the BBC for billions was likely not just to fail but to be colossally embarrassing. The BBC apologised for editing a Trump speech connected to the 6 January riots in Washington DC, but Trump wants cash.
Few would dare contend that the edit materially misrepresented Trump’s links to and incitement of the rioters. This made a legal victory for Trump unlikely. However, it meant that the BBC could demand full disclosure of Trump’s financial affairs for assessment of his claim to have suffered $10 billion in financial losses.
Unsurprisingly, Trump wasn’t listening. Having f*cked around, he’s now found out after the judge rejected his lawyers’ attempt to replace disclosure with bought ‘expert testimony’. The likely result was summed up neatly by one social media commenter on Threads:
View on Threads
However, just as with the US’ disastrous war on Iran for Israel, Trump’s pride is unlikely to allow him to admit defeat unless he can find an ‘off-ramp’ to salvage some of what passes for his ‘dignity’.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
This simple putting fix had me reading greens like a pro
Feeling stressed and overworked? Don’t worry – OpenAI CEO Sam Altman thinks that we just love to work, and that’s why AI won’t result in a four-day working week
Scarborough beach toy library plan ditched by councillors
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Sports3 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Tech3 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Crypto World7 days agoEthics, other provisions in crypto Clarity Act to be further discussed
-
Politics2 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Crypto World4 days agoRipple bought a bank in pieces. The $4 billion audit
-
Entertainment5 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
News Videos3 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Sports6 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
Politics1 day agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
Fashion6 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
News Videos6 days agoThe Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
-
Business14 hours agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Politics3 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
Crypto World3 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
Crypto World6 days agoUniswap (UNI) pushes deeper into tokenized RWAs with permissioned trading pools
-
Entertainment1 day ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Tech5 days agoAnthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows
-
Crypto World7 days ago
SEC Agrees to Overhaul Recordkeeping After Settling Coinbase Lawsuit Over Gensler’s Lost Texts
-
Entertainment4 days agoSara Gilson Killed By Husband After Viral “Pedophile” TikTok Video
You must be logged in to post a comment Login