Mark Ruffalo has taken to Threads to issue a brutal takedown of Kevin O’Leary after the billionaire mocked Billie Eilish’s recent Grammy’s speech in which she condemned ICE federal agents in the US.

O’Leary appeared on Fox News slating famous people who decide to ‘get political’. However, the right-wing pundit might consider that their political decisions shape the lives of every citizen they govern, and that democracy demands people have a voice. Including celebrities.

Of course, it can’t possibly be that the super-rich old white guy has vested interests in the current hostile immigration policy in the US:

🚨 Kevin O’Leary: “Billie Eilish’s agents are going out of their minds. The first lesson for celebrities, whether you are a music star or film star, is shut your mouth and just entertain.”pic.twitter.com/hoLOHYI5WS

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) February 4, 2026

Advertisement

SO! Billionaire Kevin O’Leary tells Billie Eilish to “shut your mouth and just entertain” after she said “no one is illegal on stolen land.”

Who agrees with Billie Eilish? ✋🏽 pic.twitter.com/6zIqw9lvBL

— Lucas Sanders 👊🏽🔥🇺🇸 (@LucasSa56947288) February 4, 2026

Eilish’s speech has received widespread appreciation, with many praising the singer for stepping out of her comfort zone and speaking truth to power:

Billie Eilish saying “nobody is illegal on stolen land” and then bleeped saying “f*ck ICE” at #GRAMMYs

EXCELLENT SPEECH! 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 pic.twitter.com/KsoSSAQKKD

Advertisement

— BrooklynDad_Defiant!☮️ (@mmpadellan) February 2, 2026

Eilish ‘controversially’ – entirely correctly – said:

No one is illegal on stolen land.

And yeah, it’s just really hard to know what to say and what to do right now. And I just, I feel really hopeful in this room, and I feel like we just need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting and our voices really do matter and the people matter.

And fuck ICE.

Advertisement

‘Dwarfs anything you dream of doing’

Unfortunately for O’Leary, Ruffalo is another famous person who insists on ‘sticking their oar in’. The award-winning US actor regularly uses his platform to have a say about the hellscape brewing in the US. The activist actor has long been outspoken against the genocide on Gaza and the systematic oppression of Palestinian people. Much to O’Leary’s dissatisfaction, we’re sure.

Mark Ruffalo defended Eilish and slammed O’Leary for his ‘fantasy double standard’, stating:

Kevin O’Leary why don’t you STFU. It’s hilarious. You will go on any show and talk shit about any number of things and smugly expect us to listen to you, but you will dig into a real artist that dwarfs anything you dream of doing for actually saying something that resonates with 100’s of millions of people the world over.

Adding:

It’s astounding the fantasy double standard Kevin O’Leary lives in. You played yourself well in Marty Supreme.

We also wrote in January how stars at the Golden Globes wore anti-ICE badges, but there are other ways for the celebrities to show they stand by their fellow citizens, however ‘ordinary’:

It’s good to see actors at the Golden Globes wearing badges and speaking up on the red carpet. However, they might consider following Louis-Dreyfus’ example, putting their money where their mouth is, and getting out on the streets to protest.

Good work guys, now go further

Our own Antifabot reported on Eilish’s speech at the Grammy Awards, writing:

This high-profile protest has helped to shine a global spotlight on the actions of ICE, but the question remains: will this ‘ICE out’ movement in the music industry be enough to force change to federal policy?

Given the billionaire’s clear disdain for outspoken celebrities – and the overwhelmingly positive reaction to Eilish’s speech – it’s clear the status quo is threatened. We hope this pushes more people to use their pedestal for social good instead of reinforcing capitalist wealth. It would be truly radical if those celebrities stepped off their pedestals and joined their fellow citizens on the ground, where the real shit happens.

Featured image via the Canary

Labour Together is part of the shady right-wing infrastructure that, along with Peter Mandelson, helped to undermine the left and boost Keir Starmer into power. And a new report reveals how Labour Together spent tens of thousands of pounds getting a dodgy company to investigate journalists looking into all this. This behaviour shows it’s not just Mandelson that should never be near government again. It’s the whole sinister machinery that put Starmer where he is today, including his right-hand man and Mandelson protege Morgan McSweeney.

“Dark shit” from the Labour right machine thanks to Morgan McSweeney

Journalists Khadija Sharife and Peter Geoghegan have reported that Labour Together paid APCO Worldwide “at least £30,000” in 2023 to dig dirt on reporters who were uncovering Labour Together’s actions. In the past, APCO has worked with companies like Israeli arms dealer Elbit and big tobacco firms.

To win the Labour leadership campaign in 2020, Keir Starmer’s team hid where he’d been getting his support from. In particular, his backers in Morgan McSweeney’s Labour Together had concealed donations to the value of £730,000 from 2017 to 2020.

Labour Together wanted to defeat the left via “soft branding that made them seem warm and cuddly“. So funding from pro-Israel millionaires would not have been a good look. And when journalists Gabriel Pogrund and Harry Yorke revealed in 2023 the funding Labour Together hadn’t declared, the shady group clearly panicked.

Now under Josh Simons (who is currently a minister), Labour Together got APCO to look at potential “leverage” they could exert over “significant persons of interest”, from Pogrund and Yorke to other journalists (including Declassified and ex-Canary reporter John McEvoy). They clearly hoped to discredit this reporting.

A political think tank hiring private investigators to target journalists and their sources. Why? Because unlike those in our profession who enjoy cosying up to power, they chose to report the facts. This should be treated as a scandal.

— Taj Ali (@Taj_Ali1) February 5, 2026

While sources insist Morgan McSweeney didn’t make the call, it appears he “was aware of it”. None of the relevant parties responsible wanted to respond on record. But even former Labour Together member Jon Cruddas said:

This is dark shit.

And that wasn’t the only time Labour Together did this either. Around the same time, it also hired investigators to look at Paul Holden – author of The Fraud – and Andrew Feinstein (who slashed Starmer’s vote count in 2024).

“Deeply sinister”

Upon discovering that Labour Together had gone after him over his journalistic work, John McEvoy told the Canary:

The news that Labour Together, the brainchild of Keir Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, was paying a PR firm to investigate journalists including myself is deeply sinister. Even more so that McSweeney was reportedly aware of this operation.

This is a man who owes his political career to the disgraced Peter Mandelson, friend of the world’s most notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

He represents the rot at the heart of the Labour Party, and should be nowhere near power.

Starmer apparently still has “full confidence” in McSweeney, despite the latter pushing for Mandelson’s ongoing involvement despite his close friendship to Epstein. Starmer would have been nothing in Labour, of course, without McSweeney’s shady operation.

I have just learned that Labour Together, the think tank run by Keir Starmer’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, paid a PR firm £30,000 to secretly investigate me alongside other journalists.

Deeply sinister news. McSweeney should be nowhere near power.https://t.co/pM1Fmuk22E pic.twitter.com/wsSKBHcliI

— John McEvoy (@jmcevoy_2) February 5, 2026

Labour Together, Starmer, McSweeney, and Mandelson: “the rot at the heart of the Labour Party”

Labour Together has funded countless right-wing politicians, as have numerous millionaires backing the organisation or sharing its aims. This includes figures right at the top of the Labour Party, from Starmer to Rachel Reeves, Shabana Mahmood to David Lammy, and Yvette Cooper to John Healey.

One Labour Together donor, pro-Israel lobbyist Trevor Chinn, has been a key funder of efforts to empower Starmer and his ilk. And Chinn has managed to advocate inside the government for Israel’s genocidal regime as a result.

There is also significant overlap between politicians getting money both the Labour Friends of Israel lobby group and either Chinn or Labour Together.

We strongly recommend you remember the names of everyone with links to this operation. Because it is nothing short of a scandal. And until this stops and there’s full transparency, the little democracy we have in the UK will continue to be severely compromised.

Thanks to Paul Holden’s ‘The Fraud’, the Labour Right’s vehicle Labour Together is in the spotlight again. Here’s the core of its funding network constructed from Electoral Commission data. Donors blue, ‘donees’ red. pic.twitter.com/R3FD4beZ35

— Tom Mills (@ta_mills) October 30, 2025

Featured image via the Canary

Zack Polanski has called out Wes Streeting for his relentless social media attacks during an interview with The London Standard.

Polanski pointed out that, unlike Streeting, he’s a gay man who is not willing to throw the trans community under a bus.

In an interview with The London Standard, Polanski said:

Wes Streeting is attacking me every day on social media because I’m another gay man in politics who is not willing to throw the trans community under the bus and that exposes his abject immorality.

Polanski, a consistent vocal ally to trans communities, showed what sets him and the likes of right-wing brown-nosing cunt Streeting apart. He told the Evening Standard:

He must know what it’s like to be othered but he’s more bothered about power than protecting the other. It’s disgraceful.

Of course, Streeting could use his lived experience of othering as a gay man in politics to recognise and challenge shared oppressions. Instead, he’s sold out and used his privilege to demonise an already besieged group of people.

As Health Secretary, he’s in the prime position to shape policies to improve healthcare access for trans people. Despite this, though, he’s so far only surrendered to the transphobes.

Polanski takes on shady Streeting

Separately, Polanski also pointed out Streetings’ links to Palantir, Peter Mandelson, and his lobbying company, as well as Palantir’s new £330m NHS contract.

Respect. Zack Polanski on the urgent questions that need asking about Palantir, Peter Mandelson and his lobbying company, Wes Streeting and Palantir’s £330 million NHS contract. https://t.co/MmZ0iviBBZ

— Andy Worthington (@GuantanamoAndy) February 5, 2026

Advertisement

Streeting’s partner, Joe Dancey, also used to work as Peter Mandelson’s assistant when he was an MP. He attempted to scrub that from his LinkedIn profile this week. Luckily, social media users have the receipts.

Then and now: Joe Dancey’s LinkedIn profile on 18 Sept 2025 and today.
Spot the difference!

[Dancey is Wes Streeting’s partner] pic.twitter.com/LCxQ2DwHFd

— Labour Right Watch (@LabourRightWtch) February 4, 2026

Previously, Polanski has also pointed out that Streeting has taken hundreds of thousands of pounds from private healthcare companies. Polanski has taken zero.

Murdering children is bad, Louis.

Wes Streeting may have taken over a quarter of a million pounds in private healthcare donations – but I haven’t.

So it’s quite simple to tell the truth. pic.twitter.com/RIgWEXmwgc

— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) January 22, 2026

The fact that Streeting feels the need to attack him on social media surely shows just how much the Green leader has him rattled.

From his vile transphobia to his links to Palantir and Epstein-pedo-bestie Peter Mandelson, Polanski is showing Streeting for the power-shielding wanker he is. We’re very much here for it.

Featured image via HG

In January, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed it would launch a public consultation on strengthening enforcement against illegal sunbed use, including measures to clamp down on under-18 access and ensure that all salons are supervised. The proposals form part of the Government’s wider National Cancer Plan and reflect a renewed emphasis on prevention and avoidable risk.

For professional sunbed operators, the announcement was not met with resistance but with broad support. Under-age use is already illegal, and those who operate responsibly argue that tougher, more consistent enforcement is essential, not only to protect young people, but to maintain public confidence in a sector that already works within clear legal boundaries.

That stance may surprise some observers. Yet for responsible businesses, illegal use by under-18s is not just a public health concern. It is corrosive to trust, damaging to livelihoods, and unfair to the vast majority of businesses that invest time and money in compliance.

“No responsible business wants to see underage use,” says Gary Lipman, Chairman of The Sunbed Association (TSA). “It puts young people at risk, and it undermines the reputation of an entire professional sector that operates within clear rules.”

Operating within the rules is certainly nothing new for the UK’s tanning salon industry. Commercial sunbed use in England has been heavily regulated for more than a decade. Under the Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010, under-18 use is illegal, and operators must take active steps to prevent access by children. Professional salons also operate within strict technical standards governing UV outputon sunbeds, equipment maintenance, hygiene, and staff training.

For the vast majority of operators, compliance is not an optional extra. It is absolutely fundamental to the way that professional salons function on a daily basis.

“Illegal operators damage every business that plays by the rules,” Lipman says. “When breaches occur, they are not simply individual failings. They create headlines that obscure the reality of a responsible sector and erode confidence among customers, regulators, and policymakers alike.”

It is important to remember that behind the industry headlines are thousands of small, local businesses, many of them family-run, embedded in high streets and communities across the country. Owners know and care about their customers, understand and communicate the risks of UV over-exposure, and have a strong incentive to ensure sessions are controlled and appropriate.

“People come here because they want structure and reassurance,” one salon owner told us. “We talk about skin type, exposure time, and breaks between sessions. We’re not here to push people to overdo it. Quite the opposite.”

For operators like this, the idea that under-18 use is somehow widespread within professional salons feels deeply frustrating. Not because the issue should be minimised but because it reflects a failure of enforcement by authorities, not a failure of standards. Equally, figures claiming 34% of 16-17 year olds using sunbeds is based on a sample of 100 across the whole of the UK,  simply not statistically viable to present as a national picture.

TSA and its members are unambiguous in their support for measures that strengthen enforcement against those who flout the law. They believe the major gap that the consultation must address is less about standards and more about how to tackle the patchwork of enforcement that enables rogue operators to continue unchecked.

“The rules are already there,” Lipman explains. “Where they are enforced properly, they work. What’s needed is consistency and focus on the small number of operators who ignore them.”

That approach matters not only for public health but also for policy effectiveness. Experience across many regulated sectors shows that when local authority enforcement is patchy, responsible operators bear the reputational cost while the minority continues unchecked.

There is also a wider risk to measures that damage the compliant majority. Removing regulated, supervised provision does not eliminate demand. It displaces it. In the tanning space, that can mean unregulated home devices, illegal nasal sprays or injectables, or prolonged, unsupervised exposure outdoors, all of which lack the safeguards professional salons provide.

The sector’s response is not defensive. TSA has consistently supported strong safeguards for young people and has worked with regulators, Trading Standards, and local authorities to improve guidance and compliance. Rather than resisting scrutiny, responsible operators regard regulation and enforcement as essential tools for maintaining standards and public confidence.

“We share the goal of reducing avoidable harm,” Lipman says. “That’s not something imposed on us; it’s something that each one of our members already works towards every single day.”

The Government has been clear that the consultation will consider impacts on small and medium-sized businesses alongside public health objectives. That balance is important. Many professional salons employ young people, train staff, and contribute to local economies while operating within a tightly controlled framework. Lipman says that any MP interested in finding out more about how modern salons work should contact TSA or simply visit a TSA member salon in their constituency.  

“There are professional, TSA member tanning salons on highstreets across the UK,” he tells us. “MPs should take the time to visit one in their constituency, talk to the people who run them, and see how checks, supervision, and customer education work in practice.”

Connecting policy to practice is critical. Effective policy and regulation, operators believe, must recognise the reality of how businesses operate on the ground. It can then strengthen enforcement where the law is being broken, support clarity and consistency, and avoid measures that inadvertently penalise those who are already compliant.

As the consultation develops, the sunbed sector’s message is clear. Under-age use is always unacceptable, rogue operators should be firmly dealt with, and responsible businesses should not be penalised. In a debate often dominated by extremes, that position may surprise some, but it is precisely the kind of grounded, evidence-led stance that effective public health policy depends upon.

4 min read2 hr

Exactly 14 years to the day before Peter Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords, my old boss, Chris Huhne, resigned from the cabinet and the Commons for covering up a driving offence, which later saw him sent to prison. As the then-Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer ensured the case was prosecuted. That custodial sentence should sit uncomfortably with the disgraced former Labour peer.

British politics has an eerily familiar way of dealing with scandal.

First comes the revelation. Then the outrage. Then demands for resignation, suspension, or sanction. No matter what punishment follows (or often doesn’t), the story eventually fades, and the system that produced it remains intact. In this ecosystem, all the energy is directed towards chasing the offender; far less towards preventing similar abuses by others. 

Now is surely the time for us to acknowledge that this is not good enough.

The allegations against Mandelson demand thorough investigation – no one should escape scrutiny for their actions or complicity. If it is indeed the case that, having enjoyed their patronage, he leaked sensitive and confidential government discussions at the height of a national crisis to his own associates – individuals who potentially stood to benefit from that information – then that would be a very serious matter. Now that the police are investigating Mandelson, perhaps we could turn towards lessons learned and consequent reforms.

Buried within the Mandelson case are uncomfortable but unavoidable questions about the proximity of wealth and power: how former ministers, advisers and donors move between public roles and private interests; how access is sold and influence bought; and how the deepening links between private wealth and public power have become entrenched. 

When the Prime Minister took office, he declared that restoring trust would be one of the defining tests of this era. He was right to do so, but this episode will only reinforce a deeply held suspicion: that those with wealth enjoy privileged access to power, that they use that access in their own interests, and that politicians are too often complicit in this arrangement.

Polling consistently shows that public confidence in the integrity of our system is fragile. Yet too often, the political response treats each controversy as isolated, rather than cumulative. That is a mistake. 

The Mandelson affair should prompt a broader reckoning to finally break this cycle and send a clear message to the public that these offences are treated with the severity they merit. Fortunately, there are immediate opportunities to do exactly that. Parliament is currently considering measures to reform the offence of misconduct in public office through The Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Used properly, this could bring clarity, strengthen enforcement, and ultimately deter misconduct. 

We are also anticipating an elections bill. That legislation offers a chance to break the link between wealth and power, to end the dependency of our political parties who are increasingly reliant on a small number of very wealthy individuals. When a billionaire can do no more for them than someone running a local shop, the attention of some politicians will inevitably shift. 

We will soon, therefore, know if the righteous outrage voiced by backbenchers in Parliament this week translates into courageous champions for deeper reform.

The latest Mandelson affair should not be remembered solely as another chapter in Westminster’s cycle of outrage or the downfall of a political figure. It should be the moment when we finally acknowledge that restoring trust requires changing the rules of the game, not just disciplining those occasionally caught out.

This case underscores how enabling environments for corruption can intersect with other serious abuses. Where elite networks operate without oversight, and where misconduct faces no real consequences, multiple forms of exploitation – including sexual violence – continue with impunity. Accountability gaps don’t exist in isolation.

We owe it to the victims at the heart of this story to challenge the power structures that first meant their abusers thought they could carry on with impunity. That might be our best chance of no longer seeing scandal repeated and yet more suffer its abuses.  

Duncan Hames is Director of Policy at Transparency International UK and a former Liberal Democrat MP.

But while it’s since been pointed out that the garment in question may have been a promotional opportunity for The Biebs’ latest fashion line, it seems the Canadian star may have given less thought to what he wore on stage than you might have thought.

Earlier this week, Grammys executive producer Ben Winston gave an interview on Rolling Stone’s Music Now podcast, spilling some behind-the-scenes tea about this year’s ceremony.

In his wider interview, Winston went on to say that when he and his team first contacted Justin about his plans for his Grammys performance, he didn’t have much to tell them.

“When we had got reached out to him about his creative, he was just like, ‘I’m just going to get on stage and sing’,” he noted.

He added of the eventual performance: “It was what he wanted to do. It was all him. It was a career-defining moment for him. It was so different to what we’ve seen over the years.”

After an extended break from releasing music, Justin unveiled two albums in 2025, Swag and the follow-up Swag II, the former of which earned him four nominations at the recent Grammys, including the coveted Album Of The Year title.

How can I get tickets for Lola Young’s one-off concert at the London Palladium?