1) Bowel cancer

2) Pancreatic cancer

3) Liver cancer

Still, cancer treatment has progressed overall

UEFA is facing mounting political pressure in Switzerland following a parliamentary move that could threaten its tax privileges after failing to impose any sanctions on Israel.

The French newspaper L’Équipe revealed that a group of left-wing members of parliament in the Swiss canton of Vaud submitted a draft resolution questioning whether the conditions for UEFA’s tax exemption are still met.

If the draft resolution passes, UEFA will be summoned to justify why it hasn’t sanctioned Israel, especially since the Swiss federal government has previously linked tax privileges for international sports federations to their role in promoting peace through sport.

The initiators of the proposal believe UEFA is no longer fulfilling its role, which could open the door to a review of its tax status in Switzerland, where its headquarters are located.

According to internal estimates within UEFA, canceling the tax exemption could cost the organisation about €30 million annually (£26 million). Tax authorities may also demand clarification on how its annual revenues, estimated at about €5 billion (£4 billion), are distributed.

The cantonal parliament is scheduled to debate the draft resolution on 24 March. A close vote is expected in the 150-member assembly, where left-wing parties hold only 64 seats, leaving the outcome uncertain.

UEFA’s president must call for a vote

This pressure comes at a time of escalating international campaign led by the campaign group, Game Over Israel, which wants global sports organisations to boycott Israel, similarly to what happened with Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.

Former Manchester United player, Eric Cantona, reignited the debate when he highlighted the disparity in treatment of both countries at a solidarity event in London last year.

According to sources within UEFA, communications and pressure from federations, sponsors and sports media have continued unabated in recent months, indicating how prominent this issue has become within European football.

Any decision to suspend Israel’s participation in European competitions requires a vote within UEFA’s 21-member executive committee, including its president, Aleksander Čeferin, who is the only person authorised to call for such a vote.

Internal sources indicate a number of committee members are inclined to support a ban. However, Čeferin —known for his meticulous calculations — only calls for a vote when he is certain of a clear majority.

The Israeli Football Association, on the other hand, categorically denied the existence of any upcoming vote to suspend its membership, describing the circulating reports as “fake news” and affirming its commitment to all FIFA and UEFA regulations.

Mounting pressure

But the pressure is no longer solely political or moral; it has also extended to the financial sphere. Several European federations have incurred significant losses during matches played by their national teams against Israel due to the stringent security measures and low attendance.

For example, the 2024 France-Israel match at the 80,000 capacity Stade de France attracted only about 16,000 spectators. Security costs for the Europa League match between VfB Stuttgart and Maccabi Tel Aviv last December were estimated at about €10 million (£9 million).

As pressure mounts from parliaments, players and national federations, European football appears to be facing a new political test that could determine not only Israel’s participation in continental tournaments but also the boundaries of the relationship between sport and politics in Europe.

Featured image via the Canary

Andrew Gilligan is a writer and former No10 adviser.

Since I wrote last month that our failure in government has deep roots in the Cameron/Osborne era as well as in the nine years which followed it, a couple of people have asked me to expand on what I meant.

One aspect of the last Conservative government’s failure was, of course, that it failed in most ways to make Britain more conservative. And the main reason for that was that many of its most important members didn’t want to. Yes, the blob was also partly to blame; and yes, latterly our own disorganisation and incompetence, in tackling the blob and in other ways, were partly to blame.

But the fact is that Osborne and Cameron positioned themselves as the “heirs to Blair.” Cameron never said this publicly, but did say words to that effect at private events with journalists, including one with me, before he became PM. As shadow chancellor, Osborne publicly criticised Gordon Brown for “challenging the key elements of the Blair settlement.”

He meant on the reform of public services, but it also extended into full support for the Blairite social settlement and way of doing politics. I remember a senior Tory strategist complaining to me at the time that Osborne was slavishly following the Blair playbook.

There were many areas of policy failure.

Some were explicitly meant to show continuity Blairism, such as spending 0.7 per cent of gross national income on aid. (As they ran out of things to spend it on, they found themselves subsidising holidays for British teenagers.) Domestically, much larger amounts of money were moved to the wrong people. The triple lock, one of the things we most need to dismantle, was created by George Osborne.

Austerity is the left’s biggest criticism of Cameron/Osborne.

But aid and the triple lock show the true, rather different, problem with the policy: that the money was spent in many of the wrong places and the cuts were made in many of the wrong places. The cuts to the courts, prisons and police took a few years to work through, but are now manifest in the effective impunity in many places for crimes such as shoplifting; in the victims waiting four years for a trial; and in the decline of the prisons towards American levels of decency and safety.

The state of the armed forces, and the disastrous defence review of 2010, is probably the single most dangerous legacy of the Cameron/Osborne austerity cuts, though to be fair this collapse has been underway for decades. Capital spending followed the same approach: what money there was (arguably too little in an era of low interest rates) often went on the wrong things, such as HS2.

Cameron’s successors also had mixed views about conservatism. May was personally more socially conservative, but ended up trying to impress activists with policies like transgender self-identification. Boris was at base a metropolitan liberal estranged from his tribe by Brexit (it was quite a job to get him off self-ID, for instance.)

All three also fell into a trap, which I might write about more in future, of accepting the centrist answer to a challenge as the challenge. So if you question HS2 – by any objective measure, a very poor way to help the North –  you’re branded an enemy of helping the North.

If you question net zero, you’re deemed to question the very existence of man-made climate change, or the importance of tackling it. Actually, however, many net zero policies have almost no chance of tackling climate change. Because even in the most willing parts of the world, broadly Western Europe, there will never be enough political willingness to implement them. The lightbulb moment for me on this was when the then co-leader of the Green Party, Adrian Ramsay MP, opposed new electricity pylons through his Suffolk constituency, needed to carry the electricity produced by North Sea windfarms to London.

If even the leader of the Green Party won’t support even one of the less politically difficult aspects of net zero, then much of net zero is surely dead. We need to start thinking quite urgently about doing other things to stop climate change, or to dampen its effects, such as mitigation or geoengineering – as well as carrying on with the bits of net zero which are politically tenable.

The reason I say all this is that I slightly feel that Tory centrism might at some point be due a comeback. It is the obvious gap in the market. But unless it learns from these and its other mistakes, it ain’t happening.

Your Party MP Zarah Sultana has slapped down Telegraph political editor Camilla Turner for a scurrilous smear by appearing to link Turner’s position – and political views – to “mummy and daddy” being directors of notorious Israel lobby group UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).

Turner wrote an article claiming that Sultana “could” – emphasis on the ‘could’:

face an investigation by the parliamentary watchdog after being accused of peddling an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

At the very end of the article, Turner admits that the Standards Authority doesn’t actually seem to be investigating the nonsense:

Ms Sultana’s spokesman said on Saturday that she had not heard from the commissioner on this matter.

Sultana’s supposed “anti-Semitic [sic] conspiracy theory” was a comment on X that:

Zionism is one of the greatest threats to humanity.

and:

[Israeli soldiers] love killing kids.

Where’s the lie?

Sultana speaks out

Supposedly, a complaint has been submitted to Parliament alleging these comments are antisemitic “blood libel” – hardly the first time the Israel lobby has wheeled out that tired claim to deflect from its crimes. The complaint was submitted by the disgraced Israel lobby group ‘Labour against Antisemitism’ (LAAS). You know, the LAAS whose non-Jewish director made up a Jewish-sounding name to submit complaints of ‘Labour antisemitism’.

But a comment has to be untrue to be libel – and both of Sultana’s are reality, not theory.

Since their illegal occupation of a land that doesn’t belong to them by violently expelling 700,000 Palestinians, Zionists have:

∙ bombed a US ship to try to trigger a war
∙ bombed their own people in Egypt to try to force them to go to Israel
∙ constantly slaughtered more Palestinians and stolen more land
∙ stolen US secrets and uranium to build illegal atomic weapons
∙ broken every ceasefire they’ve ever agreed
∙ blown up their own buildings in London to trigger persecution of Palestinians
∙ maimed and killed Palestinians attempting peaceful resistance in the ‘First Intifada’
∙ killed journalists trying to report on peaceful resistance
∙ tried to get the US to invade Iran every year for more than three decades by claiming Iranian nuclear weapons were imminent
∙ armed and treated ISIS fighters to ruin Syria.

And all that’s from way before they started their ongoing genocide in Gaza (which has killed hundreds of thousands of children), their terrorist pager-bomb attacks and ongoing bombings in Lebanon (which killed and maimed children), and their murders of peace negotiators and civilian scientists.

And, of course, their two disastrous wars on Iran that have murdered more children, seen Israeli cities devastated in retaliation, and brought the world to the brink of global economic collapse.

It’s not theory, it’s empirical: Zionism and its adherents – many of whom are not Jewish – are indeed one of the “greatest threats to humanity”.

So Zarah Sultana hit back:

Maybe Camilla Turner should declare that mummy and daddy are directors of UK Lawyers for Israel, a pro-Israel lobby group currently under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority?

UKLFI’s track record includes demanding the removal of Gaza children’s artwork at… https://t.co/woQEBqztcb

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 15, 2026

Advertisement

UKLFI

So, back to ‘mummy and daddy’. Jonathan Turner is CEO of UKFLI. He appalled the decent world in 2025 by suggesting that Israel’s starvation blockade of Gaza was a good thing, as it would help Palestinians lose weight. He didn’t use that word, of course, since to Zionists the Palestinians don’t exist:

The [Lancet] letter also ignored factors that may increase average life expectancy in Gaza, bearing in mind that one of the biggest health issues in Gaza prior to the current war was obesity.

Mummy Caroline Turner is a fellow UKLFI director. She is currently the subject of a complaint from the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) for her and UKLFI’s:

(alleged) breaches of the SRA’s Principles and Code of Conduct, including the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which are lawsuits intended to limit freedom of expression on matters of public interest. Additionally, we are calling for an investigation into whether UKLFI is operating as an unregulated law firm…

…UKLFI, established in 2011, describes its mission as countering the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and what it calls the “delegitimisation of Israel”.

The complaint includes eight threatening letters sent by UKLFI to individuals and organisations between January 2022 and May 2025 which demonstrate a seeming pattern of vexatious and legally baseless correspondence aimed at silencing and intimidating Palestine solidarity efforts.

Advertisement

UKLFI is being investigated by the solicitors’ regulator for repeated “vexatious” actions. Among its most notorious, it has:

∙ tried eleven times so far to strip British-Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu-Sittah of his medical licence after Abu-Sittah exposed Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
∙ bullied a hospital into removing a display of plates painted by Palestinian children
∙ tried to browbeat the British Museum into removing the words ‘Palestine’ and ‘Palestinian’ from displays
∙ forced a gallery to terminate an artist’s hit exhibition, and
∙ even attacked Netflix for not being pro-Israel enough.

Small wonder that human rights group CAGE describes it and fellow Israel lobby group CAA as Britain’s “apartheid apologists”.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree

But the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Whether or not she owes her position and politics to ma and pa, Camilla Turner’s own views are no less appalling. One social media user points out a few recent examples:

Going a bit further back, she condemned British Muslims for not believing that Palestinian resistance groups “committed murder and rape”. They are right and she is wrong: the UN and even Israel’s chief prosecutor found no evidence of rapes. Israel killed hundreds of its own people on 7 October 2023 in repeated, day-long ‘Hannibal’ attacks – a fact admitted by Israeli media, the IDF and former defence minister Yoav Gallant. Gallant even wished his forces had killed more.

And the Islamic Human Rights Commission felt compelled to respond to her attempts to smear it for condemning fascist rioters. It also felt it had to correct her smearing of UK Jews as uniformly supporting Israel’s crimes.

Sultana is right. At the very least, Turner should be declaring her links to mummy and daddy and their Israel-lobby attack vehicle. After all, a judge recently ordered one lobby group to declare its activities every time it tries a bit of “SLAAP” or lawfare.

But since the Telegraph is now owned by ultra-Zionists, she’s unlikely to get into trouble for not mentioning it.

Featured image via the Canary

Duo Bob Vylan have mocked Metropolitan police chief Mark Rowley for the force’s decision to ‘investigate’ them – again – for repeating the now infamous death, death to the IDF” chant at the Al Quds Day 2026 protest.

Rowley and co already looked at the chant by Vylan rapper, real name Pascal Robinson-Foster – in 2025 when it was first made. It decided no further action was appropriate. So did the Avon and Somerset force, which has jurisdiction in Glastonbury, where the rap duo first used the chant.

In a widely liked and shared X post that drew hundreds of supportive comments, Bob Vylan took to social media to say:

They’re a disgrace, the harassment to British nationals for calling out genocide is ridiculous….Will the met investigate @lfi or the 2000 soldiers that killed kids in gaza returning to Britain?

— Paul (@giggsy69) March 16, 2026

Advertisement

But the ‘investigation’ will not be binned with the contempt it deserves, at least not yet. No self-humiliation or spinelessness is too great for the UK state apparatus when Israel demands action to intensify the ‘lawfare’ war against anti-genocide speech.

Featured image via the Canary

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has ruled that the BBC’s decision to dodge a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request for details of calls between top executives and the Israeli embassy broke the law.

The broadcaster was asked to provide records of any calls that then-director-general Tim Davie, board member Robbie Gibb, then-News CEO Deborah Turness, and chair Samir Shah placed to the embassy or any of its personnel – or come up with a lawful reason not to do so. So far, the BBC has farcically told the unnamed civil servant who placed the FOI request – because he was concerned at the BBC’s outrageously biased coverage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza – that it didn’t hold any relevant records.

That bias has been so extreme that even BBC staff have written publicly to bosses to condemn it and the culture of intimidation that keeps journalists in line. Davie and Furness were subsequently toppled from their BBC roles – for not being biased enough in favour of Israel.

BBC breached rules

The ICO found that the BBC breached Section 10 of the FOI Act by failing to provide a substantive response and has ordered the broadcaster to provide one within thirty days or be in contempt. The problem is that the ICO is generally toothless. While it has the power to impose huge fines, it almost never does so – especially when politics and Israel is involved.

The FOI applicant said that:

If these calls exist, they represent a serious breakdown of the BBC’s Charter of Impartiality and a potential violation by the Israeli embassy of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The BBC’s management is known to dread calls from a displeased Israeli embassy, so there is no realistic doubt that its executives consult routinely with the Israeli embassy on how to avoid its displeasure. Nor is that spineless collusion limited to the BBC. The Crown Prosecution Service is known to have consulted with the embassy about which anti-genocide activists it should prosecute in its war on pro-Palestine speech.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations bans diplomats from interfering in the internal affairs of their host nation – a ban that Israel ignores with impunity, expecting and receiving farcical cover-ups from UK governments.

While the BBC’s failure to respond properly is unlawful, for it to destroy, conceal or edit the evidence of the calls would be a much graver offence.

Featured image via the Canary