The Oxford Union (OU) has announced that its planned debate will proceed tonight, 6 June 2026, at 6pm. The two invited speakers banned by Keir Starmer for speaking against Israel’s genocide will participate virtually:

The event will be held in our Chamber on the 6th of June, at 6 pm BST.

Both speakers will be attending virtually. pic.twitter.com/cCPTq9TXlm

— Oxford Union (@OxfordUnion) June 5, 2026

Oxford Union censorship concerns

The OU has not yet published a link for the debate, but usually streams debates on its YouTube channel. However, it is currently being sued by Palestinian-American writer Susan Abulhawa for deleting key parts of her 2024 debate.

Featured image via OU

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Lucy Powell said: ‘The spread of mis- and disinformation is a real and present danger to our democracy.’ Photograph: Joel Goodman/The Guardian© Photograph: Joel Goodman/The Guardian

This Labour Communist doesn’t support democracy in Britain by the very fact that she is a Communist left-wing MP, because that is what the Labour party is and has always been, Communist socialists; they destroy any belief in a democratic society, as is the case with the Labour party that currently holds power in Britain.

If you look back over the past fifty years, you will see that the communist labour party always uses the word “Democracy” democracy ” when what it really means is we don’t like what you’re saying or doing, and we intend to stop you by any means possible, lawful or as we decide is lawful in your best interests.

So everyone who doesn’t support our Left-wing Communist socialist ideology and aims is ultra right wing, even the 95-year-old granny down the road is a threat and must be neutralized

There is no DEMOCRACY in the United Kingdom now, any belief in democracy is only held by the likes of liberals and the mentally retarded, as obviously, this MP like all Labour and liberal MPs are.

Parliament should be knocked down or turned into a home for migrants, as Democracy in that house is long dead, never to rise again, as the politicians believe in housing and supplying all migrants’ needs before the people of Britain.

This has one political end: the diversification and destruction of everything white British, including its religion and cultural assets, as witnessed by the vandalism of The National Trust, a woke organization that is doing its best to destroy British heritage while calling itself a charity. Stop supporting it.

The blob is an organization run by left-wing supporting traitors who would give up all freedoms in Britain to rejoin the EU dictatorship.

The laws are made for people to follow in a society that respects the freedom of its citizens, that’s gone in the Britain of today buy the very fact that the politicians ignored the people’s vote to leave the EU, Britains vote was to leave the EU but that hasn’t happened most of the laws of the EU are still in place and being used in Britain, Every politician knows you can do nothing to stop the boats and the invasion of Britain by Islamists and criminals all calling themselves asylum seekers which they are not they are economic migrants with no other interest in britain except earning money any way they can and they certainly dont respect our laws or its people.

Case in Point were a member of a religious sect is allowed to say i carry a knife as part of my religion and the corrupt law allows it on Britain’s streets, but if you were a white British person, you would be arrested for carrying an illegal weapon. But hey, that’s okay, they are only white British.

The police are no longer your friends and neighbours, they are the new communist Stasi The Stasi (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit) was the official state security and secret police service of East Germany (GDR) from 1950 to 1990. Known as one of the most repressive surveillance agencies in history, it employed tens of thousands of staff and a vast network of civilian informants to crush dissent and monitor the population, as is happening in Britain today under the Communist Regime of Labour. Do not support this organisation, turn your back on them and offer no help.

Now the Donkey of the North Andy Burnham sees his opportunity to run the country into the ground with his version of Communist ideology, and that will finish Britain for good, but hey all you who vote Labour and have voted for communism all your lives, don’t complain when there is no money for your pensions, or your benefits as all the money has been spent and business no longer wants to be in britain think not just look at all the businesses going bankrupt and closing because of the communist government you elected or were stupid enough not to vote to keep them out same will happen in the Makerfield by election those who vote for Communism will get communism.

But don’t forget the media you support with your money or viewing, they don’t support you, the people they support communism and the EU values, and their own political ends, most of them and the reporters who work for them, especially the BBC, now wouldant know a truthful story if it jumped up in front of them, thats why you see the headlines right wing, they dont care if your 2 years old your still right wing it makes a better story, no truth but who cares about truth they and there reporters dont.

Nancy Mace thinks she knows why she didn’t get President Donald Trump’s endorsement.

The embattled South Carolina House Republican, who’s in the midst of a bruising race for governor, has a long history of bucking — and then cozying back up to — Trump. But her leading role in releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files was likely a bridge too far for the president, who has spent significant time and energy this year to get revenge against his GOP defectors.

Trump’s recent decision to back one of Mace’s primary opponents, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, in the crowded field will carry monumental weight in the crimson-red state. Past elections suggest that, with the president’s endorsement, Evette has all but secured her place in a runoff, as Mace and three other Republicans continue to scramble for the second spot on the ballot.

Still, the three-term representative says she has no regrets about her Epstein vote — or its consequences.

“That’s the sole reason I didn’t get the endorsement, because I voted to release the Epstein files, and I’m okay with that,” Mace told POLITICO. “I’ve worked very hard to expose pedophiles, and child rapists, and sex trafficking in my state, and will continue to do it regardless of the outcome of the election.”

“It’s full steam ahead, no matter what. I’m not going down without a fight,” she added. “I’m still the MAGA candidate. I support all of MAGA’s policies. I support our president. I’m also an independent conservative.”

Mace is one of the few remaining Republican Epstein files defectors left standing, after the president blitzed Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) out of Congress and turned on former Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

Unlike with the other figures, Trump has not publicly made this particular race about his personal dissatisfaction with Mace, staying relatively quiet until he announced his endorsement of Evette in the final two-week window of the primary. But the late Trump headwind is yet another obstacle for Mace’s campaign, which has been otherwise dogged by controversies and a serious primary field that’s already been difficult for her to navigate.

Mace’s run for governor is her highest-profile race yet — and one that will define the next chapter of her rollercoaster career. She’s had to overcome retributive political challenges from several influential figures in her own party and navigate public questions about her own mental health.

She bested a Trump-backed challenger in 2022, a consequence for condemning the president after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. In 2024, she handily defeated a primary challenge funded by allies of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who Mace voted to oust the year prior. And now, she’s back on the outs with Trump again, though she’s still trying to align herself closely with the president and reiterating her respect for him.

The White House declined to comment and instead referred POLITICO to the president’s Truth Social post explaining his endorsement of Evette, which did not mention Mace. He instead touted Evette’s closeness to GOP Gov. Henry McMaster, a Trump ally.

Observers and Mace’s opponents in South Carolina paint a complex picture of how the race and Mace’s candidacy have shaped out.

She launched her campaign in the summer of 2025, armed with sky-high name recognition and the ability to tap into grassroots online fundraising, which paid dividends at the outset of the contest. Trump even shared a poll that showed her leading the field — one that Mace told POLITICO last year that she personally sent to the president. But in early September, she joined House Democrats and signed onto Massie’s effort to force a vote to later release the Epstein files — an open defiance of the president’s wishes.

The tide started to shift against her in November, and not only because of the Epstein files drama.

Mace got into a public entanglement with the Charleston Airport Authority over a prearranged escort from the curb to her gate, leading to embarrassing headlines locally and nationally.

Airport authorities detailed in a report that Mace, in a profanity-laced tirade, lit into law enforcement officers and TSA agents for failing to meet her at a preordained pickup location, even as they walked her to her flight.

“I think the airport thing hurt her more than the [Epstein] thing,” said Terry Sullivan, a longtime South Carolina Republican operative, who is unaffiliated in the race. “She’s had really strong debate performances, she’s articulate, she’s right on the issues for these folks, but then she just goes a little haywire.”

Mace, for her part, defended her actions at the airport a few days after it happened in a Charleston press conference, calling the report’s release a “political hit job.”

“Did I drop an f-bomb? I hope I did,” she said at the time. The incident drew harsh criticism from fellow South Carolina Republicans, including Sen. Tim Scott who published a blistering statement rebuking her language and treatment of the officials. Sen. Lindsey Graham piled on, too.

Even now, months later, Mace stands by what she did.

“I get over a thousand death threats a year, and I’m the only one that doesn’t get security when traveling. In fact, the last three times I’ve had an altercation or been accosted has been at an airport, particularly the Charleston airport, because the left has lost their mind,” she told POLITICO.

Then, in February, she accused her ex-fiancé and several of his business partners of serious sexual crimes during a speech on the House floor. They have denied the allegations, and Mace has been representing herself in the subsequent litigation, often swapping the campaign trail for the courtroom.

Controversies aside, ad spending reveals another reason why she’s struggling to break through to the front of the race.

Mace, shockingly, hasn’t spent a single dollar on television ads at all, according to an AdImpact analysis, despite her healthy fundraising throughout the campaign. She’s only dropped $50,000 on digital advertising.

Meanwhile, overall ad spending in the Republican primary has hit nearly $28 million between the candidates’ committees and aligned PACs, nearly $2 million of which has been in negative advertising targeting her specifically. Protect Freedom PAC, an outside group aligned with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, has spent $1.4 million in positive ads on Mace’s behalf.

One candidate in particular — millionaire and political outsider Rom Reddy, who jumped into contention at the last minute — has topped all other candidates and PACs, reaching nearly $6 million in the relatively small state. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) are also in the race and spending real money.

If none of the candidates clear a 50 percent threshold — a likely scenario with five serious contenders on the ballot — the two top vote-getters will advance to a one-on-one runoff race, with a second round of voting scheduled for just two weeks later on June 23.

The weekend after Trump made his endorsement of Evette, Mace said she texted a friend who would understand her predicament: Massie. “I let him know that I didn’t get the endorsement, and we all know why,” she told POLITICO.

But Massie had already taken to social media.

“Although virtually all Republicans eventually admitted by their votes that it was right to release the Epstein files, only three were brave enough to sign my discharge petition to force that vote. [Lauren] Boebert, [Marjorie Taylor] Greene, and Mace have paid an enormous price for doing the right thing,” he said in a post on X. Greene resigned from Congress earlier this year after clashes with Trump over Epstein and the economy, and Trump recently called for a primary challenge to Boebert after she campaigned with Massie ahead of the Kentucky primary.

Massie has already hinted that he could make some kind of comeback in 2028, whether for his old House seat in Kentucky or another federal office. Mace, should she come up short in the primary, is not so sure.

“I’m not running for Congress again,” Mace said. “I said I would do six years because I believe in term limits, and I made the promise that I would leave Congress after six years, so I won’t be running again.”

What about a political career outside of Congress? “I’m going to wait and see how Tuesday looks,” she demurred.

Source link

In recent weeks, far-right actors in loyalist areas of the north of Ireland have unleashed a spate of racist and Islamophobic murals, banners and graffiti. The response of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who have a heavy presence in these areas, has been to remain mute or even challenge police when they remove such displays.

The banners have at times been comical in their ineptitude, like the incoherent AI-generated mural put up by Concerned Parents Newtownabbey (CPN), previously covered by the Canary. There is a serious side too, however, in the hostile sentiment such displays show towards Muslims. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) took action against it, cautioning two men for:

…criminal damage to a property and displaying offensive material.

To his credit, Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) councillor Robert Foster made attempts to have the mural taken down, showing up the DUP.

The PSNI also regard a second mural nearby by CPN as a “hate incident”. Another Islamophobic, AI generated abomination, it again reveals its creators have no decency, creativity or adequate explanation for social decline. It depicts a church on fire, with triumphant, militaristic-looking men in the foreground. The mural is captioned:

Islam is heathen, Islam is satanic. Islam is a doctrine spawned in Hell.

Hateful mural backs infamous racist Enoch Powell

It also says “Enoch Powell was right in 1968” referencing Powell’s deranged, racist ‘Rivers of blood’ speech from that year. In it, the serially incorrect reactionary hallucinated about how in Britain, 15 or 20 years from then:

…the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.

So clearly, demonstrably, Powell was not right, and neither are his modern-day equivalents in Newtownabbey with their own deranged nonsense. In Britain, people of colour remain the most victimised, and white supremacy is on the rise.

More concerning is the actively threatening graffiti that has appeared in other areas of Newtownabbey, a large suburban sprawl on the outskirts of Belfast. One in Abbots Cross sprayed on shop shutters says:

Locals only 1 warning will be burt [sic] out.

For those who don’t speak racist, that’s a barely legible threat to torch the homes of migrants in the area. It also serves as a warning to landlords who might provide their properties to new arrivals to the country. Racists have plastered similar material in nearby Rathcoole. They put up a poster saying:

Take notice. Anyone facilitating the settlement of Muslims or illegals in our areas will be held responsible. We are watching.

Alongside it is a bullseye symbol and the words “All NIHE staff are targets.” This is in reference to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which manages housing in the Six Counties. The Canary spoke to activists who closely monitor far-right activity, who explained the graffiti is very likely linked to loyalist paramilitaries. As such, it carries real menace and the threat of violence being used to enforce discriminatory housing policy outside the law.

PSNI remove anti-Muslim hate banner, DUP demand explanation

Hatemongers put up another vile banner in the County Tyrone village of Moygashel. Training their children in racism, they put the display beside a children’s playground. It features on one side a brightly lit, supposedly idyllic all-white depiction of local life. On the other, a darkly lit scene of sinister looking dark-skinned men, with a steward preventing them from entering the play park.

Rather than condemn the revolting creation, DUP councillor Clement Cuthbertson has been trying to hold the PSNI to account for removing it. He demanded a:

…full explanation regarding the circumstances surrounding the removal of the banner.

His implication is clearly that the police may have erred by taking away the monstrosity. It is part of a pattern for his party, who have offered no meaningful criticism of any of the above. As End Deportations Belfast recently reported, the DUP have even had the temerity to harangue anti-racist activists during Stormont consultations. This, instead of tackling the real issue which is the out of control levels of racist hate crime in the north of Ireland.

Migrant communities and people of colour are currently “stockpiling food in [their] homes” due to fears over potential hate crimes. The far-right are clearly ramping up for a summer of terrorising these groups, and feel emboldened in their messaging by the absence of condemnation from influential unionist politicians.

It would be tempting to ask the police to step in and use the big censorship stick to take down every message hostile to Muslims, migrants and people of colour. However, emboldening the state to clamp down on speech always has more severe implications for the left, and is a dangerous principle to endorse in general.

Fundamentally this is a long-standing cultural problem in loyalist communities, and it needs addressed at a deep level long before police involvement is even necessary.

Featured image via Charles McQuillan/Getty Images

By Robert Freeman

Source link

The proto-fascist ‘Advance UK’ party appears to be imploding after warring emails from the group’s leader and chief operating officer (COO) to members. The war has been triggered by party leader Ben Habib’s plan to de-register the party.

COO Tim Power wrote to members denouncing Habib’s attempt to disband Advance and merge it into far-right umbrella group GBPAC (Great British Political Action Committee). Habib has said that the UK extreme right field is too “crowded” because of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain. But Power told members he had stepped in and cancelled a member ballot about the de-registration because Habib has no constitutional authority to take the planned actions, which Power says would be unlawful:

Shouty shambles

Powell also says that he has locked Habib and his allies out of the party’s systems to prevent them resurrecting the ballot. The full email, including a few ‘shouty’ all-caps headers, reads:

Dear Fellow Member,

I am writing to inform you that the membership ballot launched on 5 June 2026 has been cancelled. I want to explain clearly why this decision was taken and what it means for the Party. My name is Tim Power. I am the Chief Operating Officer of Advance UK Party Limited. I have no connection to the Great British Political Action Committee.

WHY THE BALLOT HAS BEEN CANCELLED

Advertisement

1. No Constitutional Authority

The Constitution of Advance UK – published at advanceuk.org.uk/constitution – is a contract between the leadership and every member of this Party. The ballot was not conducted in accordance with that Constitution.

The Party was registered with the Electoral Commission on 4 December 2025 (registration number RPP825-995-485). From that date, Article 15.2 required a Board of at least three directors. The Party has had only one director since April 2025. Article 15.4 expressly states that a sole director below the required quorum may not take any decision other than to appoint further directors or call a general meeting. The ballot was constitutionally prohibited.

Any decision to de-register the Party or merge it with another organisation requires a special resolution – a 75% supermajority – of a properly constituted College of Electors under Articles 1.7 and 2. The College has never been properly constituted. Its members were never elected by the General Members as Article 28.1 requires. A 48-hour online poll cannot substitute for this process.

Advertisement

Any winding up of the Party requires a properly convened Members’ resolution under Article 5. That requirement has not been met.

2. The Party’s Assets Cannot Lawfully Be Transferred to GBPAC

Advance UK is a company limited by guarantee. This means the Party’s assets – its funds, its membership database, its intellectual property and its brand – are held for the benefit of the Party’s objects as a registered political party. They do not belong to any individual and cannot simply be transferred to another organisation.

Article 4.1 of the Constitution states that the Party’s income and property must be applied solely in promoting the Party’s objects. Article 5 states that on any winding up, remaining assets must go to a body with objects similar to those of the Party – that is, a registered political party participating in democratic elections.

Advertisement

GBPAC is not a registered political party. It does not stand candidates in elections. Its objects are materially different from those of Advance UK. Transferring the Party’s assets to GBPAC would therefore be unlawful under both the Constitution and the Companies Act 2006, regardless of what any membership vote said. No vote – however conducted – can authorise an unlawful transfer of assets.

3. Breach of Contract With Members

Every member who joined agreed to abide by the Constitution – and the leadership made the same commitment. Proceeding with a proposal to wind up or merge the Party in breach of that Constitution would place the Party at serious risk of legal liability for breach of contract with its members and significant legal costs defending applications for injunctive relief.

4. Conflict of Interest

Advertisement

The proposal to merge with GBPAC was advanced by the Party’s Leader, who is also the Chairman of GBPAC. Under Article 18 of the Constitution and sections 175 and 177 of the Companies Act 2006, this conflict of interest was required to be declared and managed before any steps were taken. That did not happen.

5. Ballot Integrity

The ballot was administered without an agreed protocol and without verification that all members received it. We have received reports of members who did not receive the ballot email. The ballot data is anonymous – votes cannot be verified against the membership register. There is no way to confirm that votes came from genuine paid-up members, that no member voted twice, or that the result accurately represented the membership. A vote on a matter of this significance cannot be anonymous and unverifiable. Additionally, the system administering the ballot was accessible to individuals with a direct connection to GBPAC the organisation that stood to benefit from one of the options on the ballot.

6. Member Data Protection

Advertisement

Any transfer of member personal data to GBPAC would require the individual consent of each member under UK GDPR. No such consent has been obtained. Proceeding without it would expose the Party to serious financial penalties. I have secured all Party IT systems to protect member data until proper safeguards and appropriate consents are in place.

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE

I have cancelled the ballot and secured all Party digital systems including the membership database and communications platforms. The full ballot audit log has been preserved as evidence.

THE PARTY NEEDS TO REFLECT AND SORT ITSELF OUT

Advertisement

I want to be honest with you. What has happened over the last few days has exposed serious governance failings within this Party – failings that should have been addressed months ago and were not. A Board of Directors should have been properly constituted. A Treasurer should have been appointed. A College of Electors should have been properly elected by you, the membership, for the first time.None of that happened. And the result is that the Party arrived at this moment without the governance structures it needed to handle a decision of this magnitude properly.

Advance — Civil war

Powers’s email triggered an email from Habib, insisting that Powers had said was a lie, Powers was no longer part of the party and the ballot is still going ahead. If Habib’s claim is true, Powers’s attempt to ‘secure all Party digital systems’ doesn’t seem to have been very competent:

The proof of whether coup or counter-coup was successful will be in the eating, presumably. Not that the demise of any far-right group is anything to be lamented, of course. But its fascist members will probably care far more about when they will next be able to go out waving flags and spewing hate.

Featured image via Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

By Skwawkbox

Source link

The post Why does a Welsh police force have an Islamic blasphemy unit? appeared first on spiked.

Source link

Green activist and former Respect party parliamentary candidate Salma Yaqoob was the target of the arson attack in Birmingham that Skwawkbox reported earlier today, 5 June 2026.

The local Green party has issued a statement of solidarity with Yaqoob and her family:

Birmingham Green Party expresses solidarity with the Yaqoob family after the shocking arson attack on a car outside their family home.

Many of our councillors, activists and supporters know members of the family well and admire their commitment to equality, justice and peace.

The fact that nobody was injured is down to quick thinking by family members who were able to stop the fire spreading. This extremely dangerous act was caught on CCTV and we hope that West Midlands Police catch the perpetrators quickly before they are able to commit any further acts of violence.

Birmingham attack met with media indifference

Masked attackers smashed in the windows of Yaqoob’s car during the night and poured petrol over it before setting it alight. Quick action by family members stopped the blaze spreading to their home until firefighters arrived to extinguish it fully:

Like most Islamophobic and right-wing attacks, the arson has been largely ignored by the UK ‘mainstream’ media.

Featured image via BirminghamLive

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Israel might be training hundreds of participants in the dark arts of ‘offensive’ influence operations and propaganda each year. A military leak exposed details of how the settler-colonial state seeks to shape public consciousness. And some material is specifically for English speakers. It is the second major leak of its kind in 2026.

Israeli-based +972 magazine reported on 4 June:

Israel’s defense establishment is training soldiers and other defense officials to conduct psychological operations designed to “influence public consciousness” in Israel and abroad.

Adding:

The courses, taught in Hebrew and English by academics who are not affiliated with the military, are intended for defense personnel based both domestically and overseas, as well as unspecified “foreign partners.”

Investigators at Hebrew-language outlet The Hottest Place in Hell also worked with +972 on a previous story about how the Israeli military seeks to dominate media narratives. A third influence operation was discovered by French and Israeli journalists on 19 May.

Courses in the new leaked documents teach would-be operatives:

how to use data to discretely shape the attitudes and actions of target audiences, intelligence gathering for such operations, and influencer training.

Most of the training is geared toward “offensive” influence operations aimed at:

actively disrupting or manipulating the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of target audiences rather than simply protecting an existing narrative. They include training in advertising and marketing content, alongside courses on cyber warfare and intelligence gathering on target audiences.

Black hat methods

The courses aim to teach so-called ‘black hat’ methods:

manipulation methods that circumvent tech platforms’ rules around cybercrime, cyber warfare, or other malicious activity.

One course teaches:

information operations for the purpose of influencing public consciousness in the local and international arena

Including how to:

craft and disseminate messages tailored to a target population, assess their impact, and apply the lessons to “future operations.”

The material makes it clear that training is conducted “at the [Israeli] government’s directive”. The documents describe a call for potential lecturers to teach the courses, the first of which was due to start in August 2026.

Teachers would need to have high-level academic qualifications in:

the fields of influence, consciousness, security and terrorism, mass communication, [or] digital and network communication.

And at least four years of “professional experience” in:

the fields of influence [or] influence intelligence in various security organizations.

Israel — Thematic clusters for influence operations

The material describes “thematic clusters”. These included teaching the:

fundamentals of psychological warfare, propaganda, deception, legitimacy and public diplomacy, and segmentation of target populations with emphasis on foreign audiences.

Which would include:

identifying adversarial influence efforts, narratives, and imagery, as well as deepfakes, psychological warfare, propaganda, deception, legitimacy, and public diplomacy.

Another cluster covered:

“campaign planning, execution, and evaluation,”

It sought to teach students:

the “considerations and expectations” of the political echelon, alongside “military intelligence,” “cultural intelligence,” and “intelligence collection and research capabilities for influence.”

Tailored for non-Israelis?

Significantly some courses were in English rather than Hebrew for “foreign partners” who were not identified:

For these participants, the Defense Ministry built a dedicated syllabus that includes study of “the American approach,” meaning U.S. perspectives and cultural norms, and conducting influence campaigns in the international arena.

Hilariously, an Israeli spokesman told investigators who contacted the defence ministry for clarification the training was:

an academic course for personnel engaged in the influence and consciousness effort in the IDF

The purpose of the courses, the spokesman added, was “personal enrichment.”

The overuse of terms like ‘psy-op’, ‘false flag’ and ‘influence operation’ — without evidence — has often muddied the waters around international politics. But this here is coming from the horse’s mouth. +972 Magazine and their colleagues at The Hottest Place in Hell have already produced two great reports on this topic in 2026. This is the kind of innuendo-free public service journalism which can actually put a dent in the settler-colonial war machine.

Featured image via Amir Levy/Getty Images

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Wings has today sent the following emails.

————————————————————————-

The Chief Constable
Police Scotland
5 Fettes Avenue
Edinburgh
EH4 1RB

6 June 2026

Advertisement

Thank you for your (very swift) reply to my letter. However, I am afraid that it leaves more questions than answers.

Firstly, you state that Police Scotland “have been advised” that the information provided had already been investigated. That is rather odd. Who “advised” Police Scotland of this, and why did Police Scotland need to be advised of something which they should already know?

Second, you say that if any new information should be received, “this will be assessed”. I have provided new information, in the form of what has been said, publicly, by the First Minister over the last few days.

That is clearly “new information”: neither he, nor anyone else within the SNP, had disclosed previously that the ring-fenced funds had been spent on other matters. On the contrary, they repeatedly, publicly and stridently argued otherwise. Police Scotland cannot possibly have investigated the legal consequences of the recent public pronouncements by the First Minister himself in the short time that has elapsed since then.

Advertisement

Indeed, it is simply chronologically impossible for the statement in your reply to be true: Police Scotland announced the completion of Operation Branchform on 25 May 2026. The First Minister made his statement on 3 June 2026. How could his comments have been investigated nine days before he made them?

Third, and following on from this, I have provided you with a detailed legal analysis of why there is clear evidence of the commission of one or more crimes. That is also “new information”, unless you saying that that analysis was already available to Police Scotland? That seems rather unlikely.

That legal analysis was based on legal advice, instructed on my behalf and provided by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. Doubtless he may have his citations wrong: even Homer nods, after all.

But if Police Scotland is going to decline to exercise its core responsibility for the investigation of crime in Scotland, at the very least one might expect an explanation of why the clear evidence of criminality and the accompanying legal analysis which I have provided is to be ignored.

Advertisement

The matter raised in my letter is of significant public interest. I quite appreciate that whether or not to prosecute is a matter for COPFS, and that their decision in that regard is (probably) not subject to judicial review.

However, an anterior refusal by Police Scotland to decline even to investigate evidence of criminality, at least in the absence of very good reason (and the only reason you have given, that you “have been advised this has already been investigated”, is plainly wrong) would be subject to judicial review. Given the level of public interest in this matter, I have little doubt that such a judicial review could and would be easily funded.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to take slightly longer to consider your reply this time: I would prefer a reasoned response to a rapid one.

Yours etc,
Rev Stuart Campbell

Advertisement

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
25 Chambers Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1LA

6 June 2026

Thank you for your (very swift) reply to my letter. However, I am afraid that it leaves more questions than answers.

It may, in the general run of things, be “for the police or other reporting agency to investigate allegations of criminal conduct”. However, and as I am sure you aware, that is not the end of the story. Crown Office always retains the power to direct the police to investigate. This is made clear by The Law of Criminal Procedure in Scotland (SULI), 1st Ed, at 8-019:

Advertisement

“The position in Scotland is quite different from that in England and Wales (and the US): as previously noted, the Chief Constable of Police Scotland is required by statute to comply with any lawful instruction from a procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate. The latter can also issue instructions to the Chief Constable “with regard to the reporting, for consideration of the question of prosecution, of offences alleged to have been committed”.”

I have brought to your attention evidence of a crime. It is open to Crown Office to require an investigation. That is what I am asking you to do. If you decline, perhaps you could explain why.

You will be aware of the public interest in this matter, and the need to avoid any suggestion of anything other than the complete independence of Crown Office. Your telegraphic response to my detailed explanation of why (a) a crime seems to have been committed, and (b) the commission of that crime seems to have been admitted by the First Minister himself (by which I mean that his statements suggest a crime has been committed by someone: I know not who was responsible therefor) is unlikely to engender confidence in that independence.

My letter was prepared with legal advice, instructed on my behalf and provided by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. Doubtless he may have his citations wrong: even Homer nods, after all.

But if Crown Office is going to decline to exercise its core responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland, at the very least one might expect an explanation of why the clear evidence of criminality and the accompanying legal analysis which I have provided is to be ignored.

Advertisement

I look forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to take slightly longer to consider your reply this time: I would prefer a reasoned response to a rapid one.

Yours etc,
Rev. Stuart Campbell

Source link

Source link