The ‘People’s Prime Minister’ Andy Burnham has struck a concerning deal with Ukraine. It will see Ukrainian-developed war-tested AI used to ‘protect’ UK military bases from protestors. It seems like Burnham is going to pick up where Keir Starmer left off – a spiral into anti-democratic authoritarianism.

A government press release published on 24 August claimed:

New partnership set to see the UK and Ukraine develop battle winning technology as Britain secures access to Ukraine’s Avengers AI Labs.

A landmark AI deal between the UK and Ukraine has been signed today as the two countries join forces to develop new military capabilities and the technology of the future.

Secreted lower down in the document, the government has said (author’s bold):

The first of the trial technology is about to be rolled out at a UK defence site to protect bases from protestors and hostile actors trying to gain intelligence.

The press release confirms:

The project, which uses Ukrainian data and UK technology, turns buried fibre-optic cables into a giant AI-enabled sensor. As well as military bases, the technology could be rolled out to protect airports, prisons and even railways and energy plants in the future.

Burnham’s state visit

Burnham has spent several days in Ukraine leading an official state visit. He also talked up giving Ukraine more missiles too:

To underline the strength of this commitment, the Prime Minister is set to announce that the Government has agreed that defence firm MBDA can release classified information on UK components for the long-range missile, SCALP, as Ukraine and France look to establish local assembly lines in Ukraine.

Burnham’s commitment to the war machine is evident. So is that of his cabinet. Defence secretary Wes Streeting gave a speech to arms firm leaders on 23 July, soon after being appointed, which:

promised new arms contracts worth over £11 billion and pledged unstinting support for rearmament in a speech that never deviated from Ministry of Defence approved themes.

The same report from Europe Says stated:

Also today his boss, Prime Minister Andy Burnham, committed to allowing the US to use RAF bases in the UK to bomb Iran.

The new boss, then, same as the old boss.

Burnham’s gimmicky politics and DJ sets might appeal to centrist dads and naive liberals. His branding might appeal to middle-class ‘left’ cosplayers. But the increasingly obvious truth is that whether or not he likes Joy Division, his underlying politics are perfectly in line with establishment consensus. Labour is still for war, still for capital and still for US empire. Let’s at least be frank about it.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

4 min read15 min

The Labour MP behind the campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex” said she wants to talk about the subject so much in Parliament that it becomes “boring”.

Advertisement

The MP for South Derbyshire, Samantha Niblett, said she wanted to shift the Overton window – a term which means ideas being accepted as mainstream – so that talking about consent, intimacy and pleasure is entirely normalised.

Speaking on the latest episode of PoliticsHome podcast The Rundown, which will be published on Friday (28 August), Niblett said she hopes her campaign for lifelong sex education will help her MP colleagues feel more comfortable talking about the subject in the House of Commons.

“I have spoken to male MPs who are really supportive, but who are really scared about talking about it when it comes to the debate in the chamber, because they don’t want to be known as the ‘pervy male MP’, and that’s part of the problem,” Niblett said.

“But you know how we see the Overton window shift what we think of as normal in politics, I kind of want to be doing the same thing with sex. So, the more I talk about it, the more it’ll be boring, and when it’s boring, then won’t that be great?”

Advertisement

The Labour MP faced criticism, some of it from MPs in her own party, when in an interview with PoliticsHome earlier this year she announced her campaign to overhaul sex education in Britain.

Niblett said a more “inclusive” approach would encourage people to talk about sexual pleasure without feeling “ashamed”, as well as help people better understand consent, prevent abuse and violence, and raise awareness of how childbirth, the menopause, stress and other health conditions can impact sexual satisfaction.

She hosted a campaign launch party at a rooftop bar in London last month, where she told PoliticsHome that some MPs were “on a journey” to supporting it.

Advertisement

Speaking on the podcast, Niblett said the negative responses and becoming known as the “sex MP” have not put her off: “I am happy to take it on. I’m a belligerent swine.”

However, she admitted that some of the criticism had affected her, including a recent article which asked if she was “the most ridiculous MP in Britain”. “I am only human. Of course, there are going to be some times where it’s knocking me down,” she said.

“But that’s also why it’s absolutely delightful when I have Thames Valley Police reach out to me to say, thank you so much for your campaign. When I have spoken to the first-ever occupational therapist to work in a sexual health clinic in a hospital, saying, brilliant, thanks for your campaign’.

“I feel I’m justified in the work that I am doing, but I don’t think I will be alone for long.

“I think there will be more and more MPs who feel that they can talk about it, and then we can share the load.”

Advertisement

The Labour backbencher has secured a debate in Parliament on the topic in the autumn, and is currently working on a briefing for her MP colleagues about her campaign, which hopes to normalise conversations about sex that politicians usually shy away.

“If we start to normalise it, then it’s going to hopefully make it easier for some of my colleagues,” she said.

“I know there are loads of them that feel the same. They’re just a bit uncomfortable about getting the conversation started because they are nervous about the pushback, because they are nervous about the single clips for headlines.”

---

The Rundown is presented by Alain Tolhurst, and is produced and edited by Lulu Goad and Ewan Cameron for Podot

Advertisement

• Click here to listen to the latest episode of The Rundown, or search for ‘PoliticsHome’ wherever you get your podcasts.

 

Source link

Manchester City have signed Morocco midfielder Ayyoub Bouaddi from Lille on a five-year deal. The Premier League club confirmed the move on 26 August 2026, posting images of the 18-year-old signing on the dotted line.

Manchester City did not disclose the fee, although Reuters, citing British media, reported it was EUR 86 million.

Bouaddi joined Lille’s first team in 2023, aged 16, becoming the club’s youngest senior player. He went on to make 96 appearances for the French side, including 30 in Ligue 1 last season with Lille finishing third.

He also caught the eye in Europe during Lille’s Champions League win over Real Madrid in 2024.

Although born in France to Moroccan parents, Bouaddi came through the French youth system before choosing Morocco for his senior international career.

He made his senior debut for the Atlas Lions last May and was part of their 2026 World Cup squad, starting five of their six matches as they reached the quarter-finals.

Known for his ability to dictate the tempo, Bouaddi can maintain possession under pressure and play the ball forward from midfield.

His move to Manchester City comes as the club reshapes its midfield following the departures of Rodri, Bernardo Silva and Tijani Reijnders. City also signed England midfielder Elliot Anderson from Nottingham Forest last month for a reported £116 million.

In his first interview since the signing, Bouaddi said:

It’s a dream come true to join this club and to be able to call myself a City player.

For me, Manchester City is the best club in the world.

City will look to Bouaddi to make his mark at the club and play a big part in what comes next.

Featured image via Manchester city / the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

UEFA is poised to withdraw its threat to boycott FIFA competitions after receiving assurances that Gianni Infantino’s aborted plan to sell minority stakes in world cup commercial rights will not re‑emerge. The governing body is now ready to ease its stance. The matter is due to be discussed at Thursday’s executive committee meeting in Monaco.

The shift marks a significant moment in a dispute that has dominated global football politics for weeks. Earlier this month, UEFA insisted the conditions required to prevent a boycott had not been met. This was true even after Infantino apologised for errors and confirmed the FFE proposal was off the table.

Protecting UEFA players

UEFA’s position had been clear; guarantees were needed that FIFA would never again attempt to open governance or competitions to private ownership. The organisation has set the initial proposal as an attempt to disfigure the game. Europe’s 55 member associations voted to boycott all FIFA competitions until binding assurances were delivered.

Those assurances, sources say, have now been provided. While UEFA remains deeply critical of Infantino’s leadership, the governing body accepts that maintaining a boycott would risk harming players. In particular, it would affect those preparing for next month’s under‑20 women’s world cup.

Six European teams, including England, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and hosts Poland are scheduled to compete in the tournament. UEFA insiders say the decision to step back from the boycott threat is not a concession. Instead, they describe it as a pragmatic move to avoid hurting young players and denying them a once‑in‑a‑lifetime opportunity.

One source close to discussions stressed that “this isn’t a climbdown”, insisting Infantino’s opponents “will continue until there are wholesale changes”. They added that the shift reflects “the reality of avoiding hurting young players” rather than any softening of Europe’s position on FIFA governance.

Infantino under sustained pressure

UEFA has led the backlash against Infantino since the FFE proposal emerged. The plan, which would have allowed private investors to buy stakes in a new commercial arm linked to World Cup rights, was met with widespread condemnation across Europe.

Infantino told national associations the proposal was “now off the table” and apologised for mistakes made during its development. However, UEFA maintained that assurances were still required to prevent similar attempts in future.

UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin has said he expects Infantino either to resign or face a challenge at FIFA’s presidential elections in March. European officials believe momentum is building behind calls for a change of leadership.

Europe’s long‑term strategy

Despite the expected withdrawal of the boycott threat, UEFA’s broader strategy remains unchanged. Senior figures say Europe will continue to push for structural reform within FIFA. This will include changes to leadership, governance and transparency.

The organisation believes the FFE proposal highlighted deeper concerns about FIFA’s direction under Infantino. While the immediate crisis may be easing, UEFA officials insist their campaign for reform will continue until there are wholesale changes.

What happens next

If the boycott threat is formally lifted on Thursday, preparations for the under‑20 Women’s World Cup will proceed without disruption. The tournament is scheduled to begin next month. Poland will host matches across multiple venues.

FIFA and UEFA have been approached for comment, though neither has publicly responded to the latest developments. Insiders expect both organisations to present a united front in the short term. Meanwhile, political tensions continue behind the scenes.

FIFA-UEFA’s fragile truce

The anticipated withdrawal of the boycott threat represents a fragile truce rather than a resolution. Europe remains deeply sceptical of Infantino’s leadership, and the assurances provided by FIFA are seen as a necessary step rather than a definitive solution.

UEFA’s stance reflects a balance between protecting players and maintaining pressure for reform. While the immediate threat to competitions may be receding, the underlying dispute over governance, transparency and leadership is far from settled.

UEFA’s readiness to drop its boycott threat marks a significant moment in football’s ongoing governance battle. Assurances from FIFA have eased the immediate crisis, allowing next month’s under‑20 women’s world cup to proceed as planned. Yet Europe’s push for change continues, driven by concerns over leadership and the future direction of the global game.

The dispute has exposed divisions among former players, drawn political attention and highlighted the fragility of trust between football’s major governing bodies. While the boycott may be lifted, the campaign for reform shows no sign of slowing. More importantly, the pressure on Infantino is set to intensify as March’s elections approach.

Featured image via the Canary

By Faz Ali

Source link

Source link

Top Democrats are using 2026 as a launching pad for potential 2028 presidential runs.

From progressive Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to the more moderate Pete Buttigieg and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Democrats have sought to shape their party by endorsing in contested primaries this year. They’ve traveled the country to raise their own profiles and elevate candidates they see as the future of the party.

Their strategies have not always been successful — but they have been revealing: Some endorsed against incumbents based on generational or ideological differences. Some weighed in early to give candidates credence, while others waited until the last minute to help them close out the race. And some have focused on purple districts and other competitive races that could determine control of Congress in the fall.

“If you’re thinking about running for president, you need allies,” said Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist whose firm works with House and Senate campaigns across the country. “The more that you’re out there, trying to get people elected and making a meaningful difference, voters are going to remember that.”

Appearing with candidates on the campaign trail is an opportunity for potential 2028 candidates to create social media buzz, Nellis noted. Traveling gives them opportunities to connect with donors and elected officials across the country who might be helpful for a future presidential run and pressure test how messages work in various parts of the country. For those not up for an election of their own this year, it’s also a way to stay relevant.

Some potential presidential candidates have been particularly prolific, while others have been more cautious or stuck to their home states, according to a POLITICO review of endorsements in House, Senate and gubernatorial races. And a handful mostly stayed out of this year’s primaries.

The most prolific endorsers

Few members of Congress threw out as many endorsements as Khanna.

The California representative, who has said he is “seriously considering” running for president in 2028, endorsed in more than a dozen races, often serving as one of the earliest national backers of progressive candidates such as Kat Abughazaleh in Illinois’ 9th District and Analilia Mejia in New Jersey’s 11th District. Abughazaleh lost her race, while Mejia won.

Khanna also backed left-wing candidates that other national progressives shied away from, most notably democratic socialist state Rep. Francesca Hong in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race.

His record is mixed. Hong lost and former Maine Senate Democratic nominee Graham Platner, who Khanna stood by despite a series of controversies, had to drop out after winning a primary but facing an allegation of sexual assault, which he denies — at which point Khanna, like many others, withdrew his endorsement.

Khanna told POLITICO he likes “endorsing early when an insurgent candidate is a bit of a longshot because that is when they need the endorsement most.” He looks for candidates who support Medicare for All and taxing billionaires and are opposed to foreign wars.

“My philosophy is to give those who are outsiders and have to scrape their way in — like I had to — a fair shot,” he said in a text message.

Ocasio-Cortez also endorsed a large slate of progressive candidates, but she’s been more selective than Khanna — a difference in approach that’s sparked some infighting within the Bernie Sanders wing of the progressive movement.

Critics have argued she’s played it too safe. But her selectivity has also meant she avoided high-profile stumbles.

Ocasio-Cortez has positioned herself as more of a closer this cycle. In California’s 22nd District, a battleground in the Central Valley, Khanna endorsed progressive professor Randy Villegas last September, while Ocasio-Cortez dropped her endorsement in May — about a month before the primary. Villegas ultimately defeated a moderate lawmaker backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and is among the progressives who will now try to knock off an incumbent Republican in November.

Ocasio-Cortez actively campaigned for progressives in several contested battleground primaries, rallying with Sam Forstag in Montana and alongside Sanders with Abdul El-Sayed, who narrowly won the Democratic Senate nomination in Michigan.

She recently threw her support behind Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who faces a primary challenge from Rep. Seth Moulton next week.

The other most frequent endorser among potential Democratic 2028ers this cycle played in a different lane. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a moderate, has been active on the campaign trail, visiting most presidential battleground states and endorsing in key Senate primaries, including Rep. Angie Craig in Minnesota’s Democratic Senate primary — which she lost to progressive Peggy Flanagan — and state Rep. Josh Turek in Iowa’s Democratic Senate primary, which he won.

Buttigieg, who has said he is “more inclined than not” to run for president again in 2028, has also notched endorsement wins with Rebecca Cooke in Wisconsin’s battleground 3rd District and former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin in Connecticut, who defeated incumbent Rep. John Larson earlier this month.

Most governors stuck close to home

Governors eyeing White House runs kept their endorsements closer to home, largely trying to play kingmaker within state lines as they face their own reelection fights.

The local focus allows them to flex their influence while avoiding criticism for nationalizing their own states’ politics. And they’ve campaigned aggressively for their chosen candidates — political power plays that not only strengthen their standing on home turf but could also serve as springboards for national bids.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker pumped $10 million into a super PAC supporting his lieutenant governor, Juliana Stratton, in the contentious Senate primary to replace retiring Sen. Dick Durbin, and appeared alongside her on the campaign trail. He described the race as “personal” to him; Stratton won by 7 points.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro expended significant political capital in one of Democrats’ top House targets in his state, helping recruit longtime ally and firefighter union chief Bob Brooks into the race against GOP Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in the state’s swingy 7th District and then working to elevate him out of a four-way primary. Shapiro fundraised for Brooks, cut an ad for him and joined him on the stump ahead of Election Day; Brooks won by nearly 20 points.

Shapiro was also one of a handful of Democratic attorneys-general-turned-governors who backed Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser in his gubernatorial primary against Sen. Michael Bennet. Weiser won by 14 points.

In Maryland, Gov. Wes Moore backed state Del. Adrian Boafo in the crowded race to replace retiring Rep. Steny Hoyer and boosted Rep. April McClain Delaney in her bruising primary against former Rep. David Trone — including recording a robocall on her behalf. An adviser to Moore said the governor had preexisting relationships with both candidates he endorsed, and that he prioritizes local and in-state races as he seeks to make endorsement decisions that will benefit his constituents.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also stuck to her state, only really playing in Michigan’s high-profile Senate race. She endorsed Rep. Haley Stevens in the final stretch of the race, although she wasn’t active on the campaign trail in the same way Pritzker was for Stratton or Shapiro for Brooks.

Disagreements among moderates

Even among candidates occupying a more centrist lane heading into 2028, there was room for disagreement.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former national security official, endorsed retired Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam, a moderate in Michigan’s 7th district, which she previously represented. Several Democrats had hoped she’d back former foreign service officer Bridget Brink, a fellow moderate — and as they split the centrist vote, progressive William Lawrence ascended to the nomination in the toss-up district instead.

A person familiar with Slotkin’s thinking, granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal deliberations, said that she connected better with Maasdam and saw him as a stronger general election candidate.

The person also acknowledged that Slotkin’s decision to wait to issue her endorsement until three weeks before the primary didn’t leave enough time for voters and party leaders to coalesce around Maasdam.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) rolled out a slate of endorsements of veteran candidates, mostly for the general election, but has backed a range of other Democrats in primaries. That includes DCCC-backed political novice Marlene Galan-Woods in his home state, only for her to lose the primary in Arizona’s 1st District.

“As Navy combat veteran and former NASA astronaut, Mark Kelly knows the country is best served by leaders who represent their communities and bring a range of different backgrounds and experiences to the job. It’s why he’s endorsed candidates in competitive primaries and campaigned for Democrats up and down the ballot,” Kelly spokesperson Marisol Samayoa said.

In next week’s primary in New Hampshire’s 1st District, Kelly is supporting Stefany Shaheen, the daughter of his Senate colleague Jeanne Shaheen, praising her as a “fearless leader” who would stand up to President Donald Trump.

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill also went on a recent endorsement spree focused on military veterans. But she’s backing Maura Sullivan in the race against Shaheen next week, along with Rep. Seth Moulton in his primary against Sen. Ed Markey, who has gotten backing from progressives including Ocasio-Cortez.

“The fight isn’t moderates versus DSA candidates,” Sherrill told POLITICO earlier this month. “The fight is if we are going to have strong people in the Democratic Party that are going to actually make change to make people’s lives better, or people who you can just expect more of the same.”

The ones who (mostly) sat it out

Not every potential presidential candidate was eager to endorse this cycle.

Even after working to redraw boundaries in his home state to create more safely blue seats, California Gov. Gavin Newsom stayed out of the federal races — and the contest to succeed him. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear endorsed after primaries in his home state were complete. Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who is considering his own White House bid, also eschewed endorsements.

And Kamala Harris declined to weigh in on the majority of competitive primaries because of her high profile, according to a person familiar with her thinking who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The exceptions were “based on the closeness” of the former vice president’s relationships with the people she did endorse.

Harris recorded a robocall for Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Texas Senate primary before Crockett eventually lost to James Talarico. She backed Del. Stacey Plaskett ahead of her U.S. Virgin Islands’ gubernatorial primary victory earlier this month. She has also endorsed Dan Koh in next week’s primary for Massachusetts’ 6th District.

All three candidates have close ties to Harris. Crockett served as co-chair of Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign, Plaskett endorsed Harris when she first ran for president in the 2020 primary, and Koh is a former Biden administration official.

Source link

3 min read10 min

Imagine a warehouse where fleets of unmarked vans pull up every day. Their drivers break in, load up everything on the shelves, and sell it to businesses around the world.

Advertisement

No contracts are signed. The warehouse owner gets nothing. Multiply that by every business in the country, and you have a picture of what is happening to almost every major website in the UK, where bots harvest content on an industrial scale.

Many gather data to fuel AI models, and others extract valuable information from online businesses. Bots now account for more than half of all internet traffic, yet website owners cannot identify or verify 99 per cent of the bots attempting to access their site. There is no information on who is operating the bot – whether it be an AI firm, a search engine, or someone who just wants to sell the data on – or what they’ll do with the content.

Stealth bot operators have created a black market for data already estimated at over $1bn globally, growing fast as AI expands. British businesses produce some of the world’s most valuable digital content and data and so are squarely in the crosshairs.

The result is a wild west, where value is extracted with no accountability

Advertisement

Many bots are run by third-party companies set up specifically for this purpose. Online retailers are a prime target, with bots stripping out pricing and product data so relentlessly that they crash sites and lock out real customers. In the travel sector, bots add flights to their cart without buying them, blocking real customers from booking. 

Other bots copy trusted journalism, feeding it straight into AI assistants the moment a user asks a question, so the user never visits the publisher’s site. If there’s no return on investment in trusted journalism, the stories AI can’t function without simply won’t get written.

Advertisement

Website owners often can’t see any of this. Bots disguise themselves, meaning attempts to block them are routinely circumvented. The result is a wild west, where value is extracted with no accountability.

A website owner should have the same basic ability to control who accesses their property as any high street retailer does. That is why I am introducing a Private Member’s Bill with a simple principle: if you run a bot that accesses and copies content from a website, you must tell the owner who you are and what you intend to do with it.

The principle at the heart of this is about being able to enforce property rights – a principle that underpins the efficient operation of market economies.

Once bots must identify themselves, an owner can see who is knocking on their door and decide whether to let them in, block them, or strike a deal on agreed terms, giving them real leverage to negotiate the value of what they’ve built.

Advertisement

This proposal is not anti-tech. It places no requirements on AI models. It doesn’t even tell the bots what to do. Many major search and AI firms already identify their bots responsibly. Honest operators stand to benefit as greater transparency separates them from the stealth operators. Right now, many website owners are pushed towards blocking all non-human traffic indiscriminately; my Bill flips that incentive, making transparency the best route to access.

There is an increasing awareness in other jurisdictions of the threat to publishers from anonymous bots. In the United States, members of the House of Representatives have introduced the Stealth Bot Prohibition Act, which would require bots to disclose their identity and purpose.

This is a complex problem with a simple solution, and I hope the government will support this proposal for a fairer, richer digital economy in the UK. The longer we wait, the more entrenched this wild west becomes, and the harder it will be to put things right.

 

Advertisement

Damian Hinds is Conservative MP for East Hampshire

Source link

Source link

The secrecy which surrounds information on the use of animal experiments in science has been ruled unlawful by the Upper Tribunal in a landmark case brought by animal protection organisation, Cruelty Free International.

A specially-convened three-judge panel heard the case in the Upper Tribunal, the equivalent of the High Court in the tribunal system which decides Freedom of Information Act appeals.

The case, ‘Cruelty Free International v Information Commissioner and Home Office’, concerned Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA). This prohibits Home Office ministers and officials from disclosing information given to them in confidence by animal researchers.

Crucially, this includes detailed applications for licences to conduct animal testing. The Home Office assumes everything is confidential, apart from the short summaries which the applicant legally has to publish but which often omit crucial information.

Under Section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act, statutory prohibitions on disclosure, such as Section 24 ASPA, constitute an absolute exemption from disclosure, whereby the public body in question does not have to consider whether there is overriding public interest in the information being available, as it does with most other exemptions.

Animal experiments shouldn’t be secret

Cruelty Free International argued that Section 24 is contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which, following a European Court of Human Rights case called Magyar, obliges governments to disclose information in certain circumstances.

These include where the information is publicly important and the requester acts as a public watchdog, such as the media or a responsible NGO such as Cruelty Free International.

Cruelty Free International’s request focused on the Home Office’s evaluation of applications for licences to conduct animal experiments on cosmetics. For 30 years, the department had refused licences for this purpose, on the basis that the pain suffered by the animals was not justified for products regarded as unimportant.

Before granting a licence, the home secretary has to be sure that the benefits of experiments outweigh the suffering to the animals (the harm:benefit test). However, the home secretary started granting cosmetics licences again in 2019, in secret.

Cruelty Free International wanted to know why the assessment of harms and benefits had changed. Public opinion overwhelmingly opposes cosmetics animal tests, in particular. The Home Office refused to disclose the evaluations, citing section 24.

Upper Tribunal accepts Cruelty Free International’s argument

The Upper Tribunal has now decided that Cruelty Free International met the Magyar tests and the Home Office could not rely on the exceptions to Article 10.

Crucially, the department accepted as long as 12 years ago that there was no justification for retaining Section 24 in its present form in an era of much greater governmental transparency. But it has done nothing to remedy the situation.

Importantly, legitimate interests such as confidentiality and safety already have full protection through other Freedom of Information Act exemptions.

The Upper Tribunal has limited remedies available to it. Cruelty Free International now expects the case to go to the Court of Appeal for final resolution.

Cruelty Free International’s director of science and regulatory affairs, Dr Emma Grange, said:

This is a really important ruling. The public has a right to know the basis for granting licences for animal experiments. It should not be a cosy club between researchers and regulators.

The harm:benefit test is essentially an ethical assessment, and public and parliamentarians should be able to influence its practical application. Far too many licences are granted which few would regard as justified on any basis.

In addition, how the Home Office reaches scientific judgements should be open to scrutiny, because there is increasing acceptance that many animal experiments are unreliable. This is of the first importance for human health.

Featured image via Cruelty Free International / Carlota Saorsa

By The Canary

Source link

So-called Israeli Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has found himself in charge of the Israeli occupation’s police, its prisons and its internal security. This is despite being an illegal settler and convicted criminal.

Ben-Gvir: fulfilling his promise to ‘Israeli’ citizens

He has recently been showing off a new execution facility, which is currently under construction. He says there will be a hanging rope and “viewing chamber” so victims’ families can come and watch Palestinians being put to death. Ben-Gvir, who claims the plans are based on the US model of an execution chamber, says:

 We are fulfilling what we promised.

In March, the Knesset passed a death penalty law which was initiated by Ben-Gvir. It mandates hanging for Palestinians convicted in military courts of lethal attacks against ‘Israelis’. This legislation means the Israeli occupation Prison Service is now responsible for execution — by hanging — within 90 days of sentencing.

Capital punishment legislation is part of a deliberate state project, promoted by Ben-Gvir. The aim is to strip Palestinian prisoners of what few rights they may still have, and any basic daily needs. And it provides legal cover for a reality already enforced on the ground.

The idea, since he became minister, has been to turn ‘Israeli’ detention facilities into sites of systematic deprivation, torture and abuse. He has succeeded. According to B’Tselem, Ben-Gvir has turned Israeli occupation prisons into a:

network of torture camps for Palestinians.

Prisoner advocacy groups claim the current conditions are the worst experienced by Palestinian detainees. Palestinian detainees are totally dehumanised, through institutionalised neglect and physical violence. But Ben-Gvir continues to treat them inhumanely, and makes this known to the ‘Israeli’ public.

The worst conditions possible for Palestinian detainees

Pushing for the death penalty and tougher prison conditions was the main promise of his 2022 campaign. Ben-Gvir attacked prison conditions as too soft. And he refused to join Netanyahu’s coalition without a deal to make life harsher for Palestinian detainees, and the introduction of executions. As national security minister, he used these crackdowns to show his supporters he was getting results. This was important, as polling in ‘Israel’ has shown for years, that the majority of Jewish-Israelis support the death sentence for Palestinians who kill ‘Israelis.’

The occupation’s national security minister has also given orders to prioritise the demolition of homes in Palestinian villages and towns in ‘Israel’. He has even said:

the best deterrent is evicting a [Palestinian] family from its home.

He has recently participated in a police campaign to demolish Palestinian buildings in the al-Jawarish area of Ramla, a predominantly Palestinian area in so-called ‘Israel.’ Citing lack of permits-which are almost impossible to obtain — he posted a video of himself, on X, in which a house in the neighbourhood was being flattened. He commented that the 10,000^th “illegal” Palestinian structure was about to be demolished, and said the bulldozers were making

Wonderful sounds

and

sounds of sovereignty.

Ben-Gvir minister:

Celebrating the demolition of the 10,000th Palestinian home

They are counting
They are celebrating

Israel is a racist, apartheid state

UK sanctions against now
Ban arms sales to now
Ban money from politics now. pic.twitter.com/k2JcPUuFZD

— Howard Beckett (@HowardRBeckett) August 20, 2026

80 percent more demolitions of Bedouin homes

The occupation has marginalised Bedouin communities in ‘Israel’ and Area C of the West Bank for decades. The campaign of forced displacement and discrimination is now accelerating. Ben-Gvir has ordered the demolition of 80 percent more homes in Bedouin communities, in the last three years, especially in the Negev, in southern ‘Israel’, and parts of the West Bank.

In June, Ben Gvir boasted that he had:

demolished 5,700 homes in the past year alone,

vowing he would:

continue demolishing more and more homes in Bedouin communities.

He has framed the policy of stricter enforcement against “illegal construction” as central to restoring “governance and sovereignty” to the area.

Hundreds of Bedouin Palestinians demonstrated in the Negev desert against the demolition of homes in "unrecognised villages". Community leaders called for recognition of Bedouin communities and criticised National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir for promoting the policy. pic.twitter.com/HFCduwtaGN

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) June 25, 2026

Hundreds of thousands more Israeli-Jews now have a firearms permit

Ben-Gvir also promised to expand eligibility for gun ownership to:

ensure that as many citizens as possible can protect themselves and the State of Israel.

Soon after 7 October 2023, his new regulations saw licences fast-tracked and 280,000 Jewish-Israeli citizens, including illegal settlers in more than 200 localities, now have a personal firearms licence. This is a dramatic increase from before the start of the genocide in Gaza.

Volunteer civilian guard units have operated in West Bank settlements for decades. But after taking office, Ben-Gvir created hundreds of new squads, and directly distributed tens of thousands of automatic rifles to them. He also established new volunteer police units composed of settlers. These armed settlers have the full backing of the occupation, and operate with absolutely no accountability whatsoever.

They are out of control and used by the occupation to intimidate, terrorise, and even kill Palestinians, on a regular basis. The aim, as always, is to forcibly displace them from their homes and land. But as settler violence has reached a record high, the occupation’s police in the West Bank, under Ben-Gvir, have become extremely lenient. ‘Israeli’ news outlet N12 News reports a decrease of almost 75 percent in the opening of settler violence cases against Palestinians, since October 2023.

In a recent podcast, Ben-Gvir not only called for Jewish settlements in Gaza, but advocated for the killing of 30 to 40 Palestinians every night, saying Palestinians

do not need to live.

#Israel’s far-right minister Itamar Ben Gvir has called for the killing of 30–50 Palestinians in #Gaza every night, while making further dehumanising remarks about Palestinians. pic.twitter.com/7NNOafH7j4

— Doha News (@dohanews) August 16, 2026

“Utter contempt” for international law

According to the UN human rights office (OHCHR), Ben-Gvir’s words have incited

violence amounting to atrocity crimes

against Palestinians. They are:

yet another example of the utter contempt for international humanitarian law, international human rights law and the basic tenets of humanity displayed by senior Israeli Government officials.

But his comments did not receive condemnation from the ‘Israeli’ media, or government. This is not surprising, given the result of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem poll, in 2025. Almost two thirds of the Israeli public agreed with the statement:

 there are no innocents in Gaza.

Ben-Gvir’s rise to national security minister shows how far-right ideas have moved to the heart of power in ‘Israel’ . When he was a teenager, he followed the violent Jewish-supremacist rabbi Meir Kahane. Kahane called for the expulsion or enslavement of all Palestinians, in ‘Israel’ and Palestine. As a result, Ben-Gvir was considered too dangerous to join the Israeli occupation forces (IOF).

Ben-Gvir — the face of the apartheid ‘Israeli’ state

He first became well-known in 1995, when he stole the badge from then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin’s car. He held it up on TV, saying:

We got to his car, and we’ll get to him too.

Rabin, who signed the Oslo Accords, was assassinated several weeks later.

Ben-Gvir is a criminal. He lives in Kiryat Arba, an illegal Israeli settlement on the outskirts of Hebron, in the occupied West Bank. And he has at least eight criminal convictions, including supporting a terrorist group, called Kach, and inciting racism against Palestinians. He kept a photo in his living room, until 2020, honoring the American-Israeli murderer Baruch Goldstein. In 1994, Goldstein, an illegal settler, shot dead 29 Palestinians while they prayed in Hebron’s al-Ibrahimi Mosque.

Once thought of in ‘Israeli’ society as a dangerous outcast, he is now a minister with deep public support. In the 2022 election, his alliance won over half a million votes to become the third largest bloc in parliament, being especially popular among young voters and soldiers. Recent polls show that over 70 percent of right-wing coalition voters still want him to keep his job.

Western media often frames Ben-Gvir as a rogue extremist, but he is not. He is the unmasked face of ‘Israel’s apartheid society. He says out loud what the state has practiced on the ground for decades, but others do not want to admit to. There is no mass outrage in ‘Israel’, over what he says and does because his thoughts and actions match what much of the public wants too.

And when Pew Research finds only four percent of ‘Israeli’ Jews think the occupation’s military has gone too far in Gaza, while polls show a majority backing for executing Palestinians, it shows us Ben-Gvir is delivering on mainstream Israeli demands.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charlie Jaay

Source link