Failure to vote for Israel in the Eurovision song contest is antisemitic — according to Australia’s Senate. Ozzie senators are apparently untroubled by Israel’s blatant rigging of public and panel votes. But they are deeply alarmed at the fact that Australia’s official judges dared to give the genocidal colony ‘nul points’. So much so that they want an investigation into the non-scandal:

Eurovision — colonial nonsense

Israel, of course, is not in Europe. Neither is Australia, which just goes to show what a colonial nonsense the whole thing is. Audiences are waking up to it, apparently, with viewer numbers collapsing and several core nations boycotting the whole thing.

US-Jewish journalist and commentator said the situation was “beyond parody” and a prelude to obligatory Israel-support in future contests:

Beyond parody at this point. They already eroded their free speech laws to protect Israel. Next: mandatory voting for Israel in song competitions.

Better than even odds that the UK gets there first, mind.

Featured image via Christian Bruna/Getty Images

By Skwawkbox

Source link

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A FEW YEARS MAKE: When state Sen. Jabari Brisport ran for City Council in 2017, he promised that, if elected, he would forgo most of his government salary.

In social media posts, candidate questionnaires and even on his own campaign website, Brisport argued it isn’t reasonable for Council members to pull $148,000 annually when working class New Yorkers survive off far less. So he pledged in a Citizens Union questionnaire that he would cut his wage down to $47,000 — the median income in Brooklyn — and distribute the surplus to his staff so they’re “paid adequately.”

“I’m the only candidate not only talking the talk about income inequality and calling for higher taxes on the wealthy, but also walking the walk and pledging to slash my own salary to the median income of Brooklyn,” the democratic socialist said in an April 7, 2017 interview with Gothamist. “It’s a socialist plank.”

But Brisport — who’s facing a primary challenge this year — quietly walked off that plank once he actually got elected to public office.

After losing his 2017 Council race, Brisport switched gears and successfully ran for state Senate in 2020 — and he has never given up part of his legislative salary since taking office in January 2021, according to a Playbook review of payroll records.

In fact, Brisport even voted to increase pay for himself and other lawmakers in 2023, bumping the salary floor from $110,000 to $142,000, records show.

The 2023 raises made legislators in Albany the highest paid state lawmakers in the nation. Yet despite his 2017 campaign commitment, Brisport has drawn his full salary every year since being elected. As of fall 2025, he had in total raked in more than $607,000 in government salary — in addition to about $100,000 in taxpayer-funded travel stipends, records show.

When asked why he never stuck to his 2017 promises, Brisport suggested Thursday he had a change of heart upon launching his state Senate campaign in 2019.

“When I ran for state Senate I decided to focus on fighting for higher wages for working class people and making New York more affordable for everyone,” Brisport told Playbook.

Brisport, who represents a swath of Brooklyn that includes Bedford-Stuyvesant and Clinton Hill, faces a challenge in the June 23 Democratic primary from community activist Marlon Rice, who’s running on a more moderate platform than the incumbent.

Brisport is a close friend, political ally and former roommate of Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Mamdani has yet to offer an endorsement for Brisport. But a person close to the mayor recently told Playbook he plans to roll out a slate of state-level endorsements in the coming weeks. — Chris Sommerfeldt 

From the Capitol

BUDGET REFORM’S LONG ODDS: This year’s budget was the tenth-tardiest in state history, leaving legislators disgruntled with the governor’s lopsided power over the process.

“Members are really tired,” said Assemblymember Anna Kelles, who’s sponsoring one of several proposed constitutional amendments seeking to reduce the governor’s powers. “It’s not just that people are angry. It’s been year after year, and it’s affected our ability to do our job.”

Still, as has been the case after contentious budget processes in years past, the odds remain long that lawmakers’ displeasure will turn into drastic changes anytime soon.

“Do I support a change in the budgetary powers? Yes, personally I do,” Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said last month. “But you pass a constitutional amendment. Now this is the tough part: Now you’re in a campaign, the governor versus the Legislature. Who’s paying for that?”

If an amendment doesn’t receive first approval by next week, it’ll be too late to enact one that applies to any budget before the spending plan for the 2031 fiscal year.

Lawmakers could pass statutory changes later this year or in January, though. They’ve discussed treating the governor like they’re treated when budgets run late through withholding her paycheck until talks are done. But that would serve as a mostly symbolic move, at least under a governor with a seven-figure household income and a mansion subsidized by taxpayers. There are also technical changes backed by budget wonks such as moving the due date to July, but those wouldn’t necessarily address the power imbalance.

“My expectation is there are going to be at least informal conversations after we’re done with session, ahead of the budget process next year, about how this process can work more fairly,” state Sen. James Skoufis said. “But it’s one of those things that, after so many years of banging this drum, I’ll believe it when I see it.” — Bill Mahoney

‘THANK YOU, GOV’: Gov. Kathy Hochul didn’t give the immigration advocates everything they wanted, but they’re not raking her over the coals for it.

“I’ll say it 100 times: New York is not a sanctuary for criminals, and we will cooperate when crimes are being committed,” Hochul said today while hailing new measures in the state budget that push back against ICE’s aggressive enforcement tactics.

The new policies include a ban on ICE agents wearing masks, a measure to block them from entering sensitive locations like schools and churches without a judicial warrant and an end to official agreements between localities and federal law enforcement, which have allowed counties to lend their jails to ICE.

But the final budget deal does nothing to prohibit law enforcement from informally tipping off ICE when someone undocumented commits a crime, something that’s explicitly prohibited in the New York for All act that advocates have pushed for.

Still, groups like Make the Road New York and the New York Immigration Coalition are joining in on Hochul’s party.

“We commend the Governor and Legislature for passing this package, and for creating new meaningful protections for immigrant New Yorkers,” said New York Immigration Coalition President and CEO Murad Awawdeh.

“This is really meaningful to us,” Make the Road New York’s co-executive director Natalia Aristizabal said during the event. — Jason Beeferman

FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

WHY WFP DIDN’T ENDORSE: Rep. Adriano Espaillat’s record on Israel cost him an endorsement from the Working Families Party, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The people, granted anonymity to discuss internal party decisions, told Playbook that Espaillat’s refusal to support the Block the Bombs Act was a major problem for the party, which ultimately decided not to weigh in as he faces a challenge from democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier in NY-13. The legislation would prohibit the sale of military equipment to Israel until the country guarantees compliance with international law.

Mamdani endorsed Chevalier on Thursday night, a move that has injected energy in a race that was previously viewed as an uphill climb for the democratic socialist. She has been fiercely critical of Israel and its war in Gaza since the start of the race, and has criticized the hundreds of thousands of dollars the incumbent Congress member has accepted from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee over the years.

“I think Espaillat missed the moment,” one of the people told Playbook. “There was a moment — there still is a moment — to evolve, and he didn’t. And now he has a real race.”

The second person said the Working Families Party did appreciate how Espaillat, the first formerly undocumented person elected to Congress, has led the charge on immigration from the House, but his inability to support the weapons sale bill caused concern among its members.

Meanwhile, Hochul took the opportunity today to praise Espaillat after Mamdani’s endorsement.

“I’m not commenting on why other people do what they do,” Hochul said. “I don’t think anyone has done a better job than Adriano Espaillat, and that’s important to know. This is not intended to set up a collision course of who’s endorsing who. I support long-standing allies … and the people that I believe in. — Jason Beeferman

PAC IT UP: An independent expenditure committee backed by a prominent Albany-based lobbying firm is ready to spend big in a handful of legislative races.

New York Forward, the group backed by the firm Brown & Weinraub, is expected to spend “several hundred thousand dollars” in several races. That includes backing the state Senate bid of Assemblymember Grace Lee, who’s running for the seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Brian Kavanagh.

The group is also providing get-out-the-vote support for state Sen. Joe Addabbo and Assemblymembers Catalina Cruz, Andrew Hevesi and Jordan Wright.

“New York Forward was created to support candidates who do the hard, constructive work of governing,” said Evan Rantzaklis, who is leading the effort for Brown & Weinraub. “That means backing leaders who deliver for their districts, build coalitions, and take their responsibilities seriously. These first expenditures reflect exactly that mission.” — Nick Reisman

THE DEBATE DEBATE: One of the city’s more under-the-radar primaries seems like it won’t be getting a debate.

The New York City chapter of the League of Women Voters said it’s canceling a planned face-off between Democratic Rep. Grace Meng and former diplomat Chuck Park, who’s running to the incumbent’s left. Kai Rosenthal, the chapter’s co-president, cited “many conflicts and short timing” for the cancellation.

Park is blaming Meng.

“Over the course of a month, we accepted all of Rep. Meng’s requests for new dates, a new venue, and a shorter time, but she was still unwilling to make it work,” he said in a statement. “If she’s ready to face the public, she can name a date and time, and I’ll be there.”

A spokesperson for Meng’s campaign pushed back, saying she “worked in good faith to make a debate happen.” In an email this morning responding to the cancellation, Meng campaign manager Harry Brussel wrote that the campaign is “truly sorry to hear that the debate won’t be possible” and asked to be kept apprised “if circumstances change.”

“It’s disappointing it didn’t come together,” Meng’s spokesperson continued in a statement to Playbook. “But this has been a long campaign and voters know full well what their choices are. They know Grace works hard and delivers and that Chuck complains about process.” — Madison Fernandez

IN OTHER NEWS

— RED LINE: A contentious NY-21 Republican primary between Robert Smullen and Anthony Constantino was on full display Thursday, where sharp debate exchanges ended with a snubbed handshake. (Times Union)

— PRIME EXAMPLE: Court filings by Attorney General Letitia James and the Teamsters union in Amazon’s challenge to a New York labor law defended state action, citing yearslong delays and dysfunction by the federal labor board. (amNY)

— ACT NOW, REVIEW LATER?: New York City’s child welfare agency is facing a class-action lawsuit from families alleging it removes children without prior court approvals. (The New Yorker)   

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

Source link

With only a few days to go before the start of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the features of the main contenders competing for the global title have begun to take a clearer shape. This comes amid an exceptional struggle between two generations: the generation of legends approaching the final curtain of their careers, led by Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, and the new dominant generation led by Kylian Mbappé, Lamine Yamal, and Vinícius Júnior.

The Canary has identified the top 7 teams leading the title expectations, considering the quality of names, stability, and recent results — in addition to historical backgrounds and special stories that give each team different motivations heading into the tournament.

France — Deschamps’ final World Cup

The French national team enters the tournament as one of the most stable teams in the world, after Didier Deschamps maintained his project since 2012, leading the “Les Bleus” to the 2018 World Cup title and the 2022 final.

France possesses a massive offensive arsenal led by Kylian Mbappé and Ousmane Dembélé, alongside a group of players capable of making a difference in quick transitions, which has helped the French team maintain a constant presence in the final stages over the last decade.

However, the biggest challenge for France lies in maintaining defensive balance, especially against teams that excel in pressing and possession, in addition to the factor of mental fatigue after many years of continuous competition for all trophies.

The approaching end of the Deschamps era also gives the French team additional motivation, given reports that the 2026 World Cup will be the final stop for the coach who returned France to the top of the world.

Spain — A youth revolution led by Yamal

As for Spain, it enters the World Cup with a completely different image from the 2010 edition in which it won its only global title. “La Roja” currently relies on faster and bolder football, with a young generation led by Lamine Yamal—one of the most prominent rising talents in world football—alongside Nico Williams and Pedri.

The Spanish national team possesses a flexible technical system that combines traditional possession with direct play, in addition to a midfield capable of controlling the rhythm of matches, making it appear as one of the most developed European teams in recent years.

Despite this, the lack of World Cup experience among several young players remains the biggest question mark, especially with the expected pressure in the knockout stages.

Argentina — Messi’s dream ending

The Argentine national team enters the tournament with a historic ambition to retain the World Cup title it won in the previous edition in Qatar, following achieving the title previously in 1978 and 1986.

Argentina appears to be one of the most cohesive teams collectively, after coach Lionel Scaloni succeeded in building a balanced team that combines fighting spirit with tactical discipline, in addition to the experience the players gained after the Qatar World Cup triumph.

The most prominent story remains tied to Lionel Messi, who is making his final appearance in the World Cup in an attempt to end his career in a new historic fashion, amid questions about the team’s ability to maintain the same physical and mental pace until the end of the tournament.

England — It’s coming home?!

Despite the English national team possessing one of the strongest generations in the world, the “Three Lions” are still searching for their first World Cup title since 1966.

The English team has a huge offensive power led by Harry Kane, alongside a large group of stars capable of making a the difference, which has kept the team constantly present in the advanced stages during recent tournaments.

However, the chronic problem for England remains more mental than technical, as the team has become accustomed to retreating in decisive moments despite the abundance of names and experience.

Portugal — Ronaldo’s sixth World Cup

Portugal appears to be one of the most complete teams in midfield, with names like Vitinha, João Neves, Bruno Fernandes, and Bernardo Silva—elements that grant the team a great ability to control matches and create opportunities.

The Portuguese national team also enters the tournament amid global interest in Cristiano Ronaldo’s participation in the World Cup for the sixth time in his career, a nearly unprecedented historic record for players.

Despite the abundance of technical quality, the most important question remains linked to Portugal’s ability to translate control and possession into decisive offensive effectiveness against top teams, especially since they have never won the global title in their history.

Brazil — The Ancelotti era

Brazil enters the tournament amidst a new phase under the leadership of Italian coach Carlo Ancelotti, who seeks to return the “Seleção” to the podium that has been absent since 2002.

The Brazilian national team has one of the strongest offensive systems in the world, with Vinícius Júnior and Raphinha, in addition to the return of Neymar to give the team more experience and individual solutions.

However, Brazil is still required to find the appropriate defensive balance, especially in big matches, after the team suffered in recent editions from clear fragility against tactically organized teams.

Germany — making a return?

Germany enters the tournament with a clear desire to restore its historical prestige after consecutive group-stage exits in the 2018 and 2022 editions.

Coach Julian Nagelsmann is leading a new project that relies on high pressing, speed, and offensive transitions, with a group of stars led by Kimmich, Havertz, and Musiala.

Despite the clear improvement in the team’s character recently, doubts still surround Germany’s ability to regain the champion’s mentality, especially after years of lost confidence and fluctuating results.

Who will lift the 2026 World Cup title?

Between France’s desire to continue its dominance, Argentina’s ambition to retain the title, England’s quest to end a historic curse, and Brazil and Germany’s attempts to reclaim glory — the 2026 World Cup is poised to be one of the most exciting editions in the tournament’s history.

The upcoming tournament may not just be a competition for the golden trophy, but a direct confrontation between the final era of legends and the new generation preparing to impose its control on world football for years to come.

Featured image via Manuel Velasquez/Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Commentator Jeffrey Sachs said in an interview on Wednesday that he would advise Britain to focus on keeping the National Health Service (NHS) from collapsing rather than going to war with Russia.

Sachs added that Britain is the ‘number one warmonger’ driving dangerous escalation between Ukraine and Russia. He was pointing to Britain’s role in arming Ukraine and providing it with intelligence.

He said:

Britain, of course, is the number one warmonger of all. Britain still lives in the dreamland of the British Empire. And it wants to escalate at all times.

Sachs was condemning the escalation by Ukraine, which struck a school dormitory in Russia last week.

Russia’s human rights commissioner, Yana Lantratova, said 86 teenagers between the ages of 14 and 18 had been asleep inside the hostel belonging to Luhansk Pedagogical University’s Starobilsk school when Ukrainian drones attacked during the night. At least 21 children have been killed by the attack.

Sachs called the attack “a human tragedy” and “an extraordinarily dangerous provocation,” and lamented that Russia signaled a dramatic military escalation in response.

Britain — the number one warmonger

UK is indeed great at warmongering. Just this week, Former special forces soldier-turned-defence minister Alistair Carns boasted on Wednesday that drones were the “most effective killing weapons” at a summit in Riga, Latvia.

Carns said the UK delivered £600 million worth of drones to Ukrainian forces last year, increasing numbers by a factor of ten from 10,000 in 2024 to 100,000 in 2025.

According to Sachs, de-escalation is still possible — but it requires Europe, and particularly Germany, to take responsibility.

Sachs pointed to the open letter he has published to German Chancellor Merz in the Berliner Zeitung this week.

Sachs laid out six serious failures of German foreign policy toward Russia since reunification in 1990. He argues that Germany must confront these failures before it can pursue peace.

6 points for Germany

According to him, the six points for which Germany bears the responsibility are:

• The Two Plus Four Agreement and the eastward expansion of NATO — Germany promised the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand eastward in exchange for reunification,  and yet, as early as 1993, German politicians began to break these assurances.
•  ​​Chancellor Merkel’s own statement — Merkel wrote that inviting Ukraine into NATO would be a “declaration of war against Russia,” yet she yielded to US pressure.
• The betrayal of the 2014 agreement — Germany helped broker a peace deal in Kyiv, then failed to enforce it when Yanukovych was overthrown in a coup within 24 hours. Following the example of the United States, Germany supported the new government as if no agreement had ever existed
• Minsk II — Merkel later admitted the 2015 agreement was used merely to give Ukraine time to rearm, not as a genuine peace plan.
• Nord Stream — Evidence points to a joint Ukrainian-American operation, yet Germany allowed blame to be shifted to Russia.
• The Istanbul Agreement of April 2022, which was within reach  — Ukraine agreed to neutrality in April 2022, but the UK’s then Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv and instructed Ukraine not to sign. Germany remained silent.

In the interview, Sachs presses that direct negotiation between Berlin and Moscow as “the only real exit ramp from disaster.”

Sachs is right — the best thing the UK can do so the war is not escalated is to concentrate on the state’s own failings.

Featured image via Reuters

By The Canary

Source link

US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau recently said the quiet part out loud, stating that the US will not let India develop like China.

Landau’s remarks are honest about what the USA sees India as: a periphery country, needed to extract profits from by exploiting its low wages, decimating its environment, and plundering its resources.

This is similar to how Britain, in 1947, used the sterling balances negotiations to restrict India’s industrial development.

Though Britain owed India over £1 billion from World War II, Whitehall froze these funds. Britain leveraged “informational asymmetries while Indian sovereignties were in flux,” which ensured India could not use its own savings for industrialisation while keeping the country formally independent.

India’s Hindutva government, a global far-right project (along with US tech companies), reflects this US strategy.

China, with its massive state planning, has not allowed Google and other American companies to serve as virtual town halls or squares the way they do elsewhere, including in the UK. UK elites like Rishi Sunak, Peter Mandelson, and Tony Blair are deeply embedded with US tech, too. For example, Starmer’s adviser held 16 undisclosed meetings with top US tech bosses.

Google AI data centre — a calamity for locals

An example of Hindutva’s red carpet to US tech, helping super-profits for US monopolies and creating a new dependent relationship with the Global South, is Google’s AI data centre in the sleepy town of Visakhapatnam. Google, which is working on the project with Indian cronies — Bharti Airtel and Adani Group,

The hub is India’s first facility built for a US tech giant to train large-scale AI models. It will sprawl across 600 acres and, at full tilt, consume as much electricity as six million Indians.

According to the Polis Project:

In India, data centres are being granted uninterrupted power and water even as nearby poor communities struggle for basic access, and Dalit families in places like Mumbai and Visakhapatnam are reporting eviction pressure, land acquisition, and dispossession tied to this buildout.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Polis Project (@thepolisproject)

Trump’s racist remarks on India

Hindutva’s obsequiousness to US firms, despite Trump recently calling India a “hellhole,” is because of the material interests of its elites. Just like the UK elites, the Indian elites have sold their souls to greed.

Professor Radhika Desai explains that elites in BRICS countries, including India, are too invested in the dollar system. They park their money there as their “treasure island,” which slows down dedollarisation and deepens their dependent relationship with US capital.

India recently welcomed Marco Rubio, who is Landau’s boss, and promised to buy $500 billion in American goods. Again, capitulating to US interests while India faces a huge crash in the rupee due to Trump’s own choice of war on Iran.

It could be that Rubio is prone to exaggerations like his boss, Trump, though, at least that is what Professor Ashok Swain quipped.

Indians don’t have money to buy gold, don’t have money for foreign travels, no gas, no petrol, Rupee is falling against dollar every day, Marco Rubio still thinks, Modi will buy $500 billion of US goods! https://t.co/w19HY94Akp

— Ashok Swain (@ashoswai) May 23, 2026

People’s Dispatch also questioned the nature of Rubio’s visit.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Peoples Dispatch (@peoplesdispatch)

They said:

The political opposition in India has also found Modi’s government’s approach to the US problematic, often describing it as aimless and bordering on capitulation. They have questioned the failure of the state to defy US dictates of not buying oil from Russia or Iran, which is relatively cheaper and easier to transport than oil bought from the US.

Israel as the ‘Fatherland’

US-backed Israel had few nicer things to say about India. In a recent interview, Netanyahu said that in India, the love for Israel was “crazy.”

Netanyahu:

I’ll say this: we face delegitimization in much of the world — but not in India.

In India, there is an absolutely crazy love for Israel, truly crazy.

I think I have more followers from India than from anywhere else. pic.twitter.com/FRIo2cdVb3

Advertisement

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 28, 2026

Again, Israel — which views itself as a part of the Global North — does not view India as an equal. Netanyahu’s appreciation lies in the fact that Israel wants access to cheap labour in India.

Israel’s Brigadier General Erez Winner, in an honest moment, as Landau said, said that India’s population was a ready-made production line for Israeli weapons. He guffawed after making this statement.

Modi infamously called Israel the “Fatherland” in his trip to the country just before it started bombing Iran with the USA.

The consequences of this war of aggression against Iran, a supplier of oil to India, are the fertilizer and food shortages India is currently facing.

India’s Frontline said that Modi calling Israel the Fatherland to India’s Motherland would go down in “history as the moment when India abandoned ethical diplomacy for performative mysticism in order to signal support to all anti-Muslim formations.”

The US-Israel tech alliance can be viewed as two core states functioning as a single war-tech apparatus — whereas India remains a peripheral host, forced to roll out the red carpet for US monopolies while its own people are dispossessed.

For example, US tech has backed Israel’s AI-powered genocide of Palestinians through Project Nimbus — a $1.2 billion contract to provide cloud computing services for the Israeli government and defence establishment by Google and Amazon.

Michael Kwet of  Yale Law School said it well:

Big Tech corporations are modern-day East India companies; they are an extension of American imperial power. They colonise the global digital economy and reinforce the divide between the North and the South.

Landau was right. US tech firms have no interest in a developed India. They need cheap labour, plundered resources, and captive markets, not a rival.

Better to take the words of Landau, Trump, and Erez Winner at face value, of what they see as India’s role in the global economy.

Featured image via Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

By Nandita Lal

Source link

Over six million donkeys are slaughtered each year to produce ejiao. It’s a gelatine used in supplements, food and cosmetics. And it’s sold globally, including via major online retailers.

Working donkey and horse charity Brooke carried out an investigation. It found that while Amazon UK doesn’t sell these products directly, they remain available through third-party sellers on its marketplace.

Donkeys are vital to millions of people, supporting livelihoods, education and access to essentials in some of the world’s poorest communities.

The donkey skin trade is causing extreme suffering worldwide, including violent capture, long transportation without food or water, and brutal slaughter conditions for these animals.

Chris Wainwright, CEO of Brooke said:

This trade, which most people don’t even realise exists, is causing immense suffering for both animals and people. When a donkey is stolen and slaughtered, entire families lose their income and lifeline overnight. This has to change.

Amazon must take action to ensure its platforms aren’t accelerating this cruelty. So that we can help end the trade and protect donkeys – relied on by so many worldwide.

Brooke has contacted Amazon UK but received no response. The charity has launched a petition to stop the sale of ejiao on Amazon’s platforms, asking for clear, responsible action.

ITV’s This Morning resident vet Dr Scott Miller is also Brooke’s Donkey Skin Trade Ambassador. He’s asking Amazon to consider the devastating effects the trade is having on animals and people globally.

Miller said:

Speaking directly to anyone working at Amazon, I would say I understand your ignorance regarding ejiao. I didn’t know about it either until I started working with Brooke.

But once you know about this product and the brutal trade that’s behind it, you will want to take action. You will want to protect some of the most vulnerable and poorest communities on this planet. By simply banning any product that contains ejiao from your platform.

The UK public can make a huge difference, says Miller, by writing to their local MP, writing to their local newspaper and signing Brooke’s petition to ban ejiao sales on Amazon. He added:

I personally have seen first-hand how the production of ejiao devastates communities, particularly the poorest in Africa. It has a huge impact not only on women, but the health and education of children.

Anyone that has a heart, that cares about animals and that cares about people would want to support the ban of ejiao worldwide.

Advertisement

In 2025, Brooke found that if the trade continues at its current rate, Africa could lose half its donkey population by 2040.

By signing Brooke’s petition, people can help expose a largely hidden trade and build pressure for meaningful change.

Featured image via Brooke

By The Canary

Source link

The Guardian, or at least one of its journalists, has been implicated in the ‘Labour Together’ journalist spying scandal at least two years before the scandal broke. This is according to the X account “The Fraud.”

The Starmeroid sabotage crew had paid PR firm APCO to try to stitch up independent authors Paul Holden and Andrew Feinstein. They even went after members of Holden’s family, and tried to have Britain’s security services pursue them. For what? All for exposing the large donations the group kept hidden. And an as-yet unnamed Guardian hack knew all about it. That journalist kept silent, as reported by the X-based account on 28 May.

Yet more scandal

Holden exposed the new scandal through a ‘Subject Access Request’ (SAR) under data protection laws. Among the responses Labour Together provided was an email from disgraced then-director Josh Simons to the Guardian ‘journalist’. The response included an email chain showing discussions between Labour Together and the UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). They were trying to persuade it to target those investigating Labour Together. Those efforts — to the NCSC’s credit — were swatted away. Still, Labour Together’s pernicious efforts could have ruined the careers of two honest investigative writers.

The scandal first broke in 2025. It was covered by Skwawkbox, the Canary, and other independent media. However, the ‘mainstream’ press only started to pay attention when they discovered that Simons’s outfit had also spied on two Times journalists. As a result, Simons resigned from Starmer’s front bench. He has now quit as an MP. But the scandal went to the heart of Number 10. Moreover, it should have brought down Starmer and his government too. The government was constructed entirely on the lies and sabotage of Labour Together. Labour Together was run by Starmer’s now-former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. Previously, it was run by Simons.

‘See no evil’

The lack of ‘mainstream media’ (MSM) attention when the spying on Holden was first exposed is scandalous enough. Now, these new revelations show at least one ‘mainstream’ hack knew about it two years prior. They still did nothing.

Holden, in an X post responding to an attempt by another ‘mainstream’ journalist to whitewash dodgy ‘MSM’ conduct, explained in detail the significance of the SAR response. He makes clear that the content of these grossly defamatory emails put beyond question attempts by Labour Together, and its agents, to protect themselves.

Here, Zack Polanski talks about disproportionate media scrutiny. He brings up Labour Together, Josh Simons and the scandal around Labour Together hiring APCO Worldwide to target journalists, including me. Before Polanski can complete his point, he is interrupted by
@robpowellnews, who says that was appropriately reported by the media.

But that’s not what happened AT ALL.

In fact, I can now reveal, for the first time, that an as-yet unknown journalist at the Guardian KNEW about this story for 2 years and didn’t report it.

Advertisement

I found this out in from my Subject Access Request to Labour Together. I’ve copied a screengrab below. It shows that in February 2024, Josh Simons forwarded a series of emails to the journalist. The emails had been sent by Simons and his Chief of Staff at Labour Together to the National Cyber Security Centre.

Holden continues, showing just how easily the Guardian and its staff could have verified or disproven Labour Together’s smears on people positively known to them:

You’ll note in the attached image that the name of the Guardian journalist has been blacked out. But Labour Together have confirmed that they were, indeed, a Guardian journalist.

The emails forwarded by Simons show that Labour Together had told the NCSC that I was at the centre of a mad conspiracy theory, making all sorts of wild, ludicrous, highly defamatory allegations about me, my colleague @andrewfeinstein, and my family. The emails explicitly mention that Labour Together had attached an extensive report on which these seriously defamatory allegations was based. It also made it clear that Labour Together had done this after I worked with the Sunday Times and other outlets to break stories about Labour Together and Morgan McSweeney’s unlawful conduct.

What makes this all particularly egregious is that me and @andrewfeinstein have had a long relationship with the Guardian.

Advertisement

Andrew had worked with it’s [SIC] investigative team since the mid-2000s, focusing on investigating BAE Systems and corruption. The Guardian positively reviewed his book, The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, on which I also worked. The award-winning feature documentary based on the book, made by recent Oscar nominee director Johan Grimonperez, featured a lengthy interview with the inimitable David Leigh about the BAE story. Leigh was the Guardian and Observer’s long-time head of investigations.

I started collaborating with the Guardian investigation team in the mid-2010s, focusing on corruption at AgustaWestland. The Guardian also splashed with an investigation based on my work in South Africa in 2022, which had been covered by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Andrew and I had both written for the paper, worked on joint investigations, and also acted as sources for Guardian stories. There are any number of stories where we are not credited but where we provided key information or connected the paper to whistleblowers.

This is not to cloak me and Andrew in mainstream respectability or buff our credentials, but to point out that debunking the lunatic claims in the NCSC emails would have taken five minutes and a few phonecalls around the Guardian office. Perhaps then the Guardian could have reported on this despicable attempt to destroy the reputation of long-time Guardian contributors and collaborators with fabrications and conspiracy theories by the people on their way to forming the next government.

Advertisement

But that didn’t happen. Instead, a journalist at the Guardian KNEW that Simons and Labour Together had been doing all this outrageous stuff to protect Starmer and McSweeney. For two years: while Labour Together was funding 100 incoming MPs, Josh Simons was getting parachuted into Makerfield and Morgan McSweeney rose to the position of Chief of Staff. And nothing was reported.

Conspiracy and silence

And Holden rounds off by pointing out that those who knew about the scandal and should have acted were not only at the Guardian. In fact, Starmer’s closest advisers — therefore probably Starmer himself — didn’t just know after the fact. Moreover, they were involved all along:

We now know, of course, that the highest levels of the Labour Party had also been copied into discussions about the mad Labour Together/APCO investigation, including McSweeney himself and head of Comms, Paul Ovenden (who was later forced to resign as Chief of Strategy in Number 10 because of revelations from my book).

Just how many other people in Labour knew? Just how many other journalists knew? We still don’t know. Can’t say that mainstream outlets have done anything much to help me find out; half the time, as with the BBC, they don’t even bother to ask me or Andrew to comment the scandal before amplifying the exculpatory self-justifications of Simons and his ilk.

In the end it took brave INDEPENDENT journalists like Khadija Shariffe & Peter Geoghegan (rightly now nominated for the Paul Foot Award),
@PulaRJS and @OborneTweets to break the story. While I’m endlessly grateful for that reporting, and this story breaking through into the mainstream through the dogged work of Peter and Khadija, it should never have taken this long, and it speaks volumes that it only really did so after it was revealed that the Labour Together/APCO investigation had also targeted journalists at the Guardian and Sunday Times.

Advertisement

Just imagine the Guardian had reported on this back in February 2024.

Just imagine the Guardian, which has NEVER, not once, properly reported on the Labour Together donations story, decided to look into McSweeney’s unlawful conduct. Just imagine the public had been made aware of the character of Morgan McSweeney and the nature of this political project.

Maybe, just maybe, McSweeney’s wretched, scandalous proclivities wouldn’t have destroyed the first Labour government in 15 years, opening up the way for Reform, and tainting the Labour Party with the stench of Mandelson and the horrors of Epstein.

Maybe Starmer, so coddled and protected by the Guardian’s soft-touch reporting, would have been made battle-hardened and ready for governance by some proper scrutiny and challenge.

Advertisement

Or maybe we could have found out, long before this current crisis, that he wasn’t up for the task.

But don’t try to pretend that there is an equality of scrutiny in the media, and that the mainstream media is fearlessly holding the powerful to task with the same rigour that makes it to literally go rooting around Polanski’s dirty laundry.

Even the so-called ‘liberal’ mainstream media in the UK are utterly suborned and untrustworthy. The Canary and other independent media operate to far higher ethical and professional standards, uncorrupted by oligarch owners and the lust for access to the powerful it is supposed to be exposing.

The Canary serialised Holden’s outstanding book, The Fraud. You can read it here to see the revelations that spooked Starmer’s Labour Together handlers that they embarked on an attempted state-power stitch-up.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Property investment still attracts people for one simple reason: bricks feel more real than numbers on a screen. Stocks jump up and down every hour. Crypto trends change before lunch. An apartment building? You can walk around it, touch the walls, hear the traffic outside. In 2026, buyers are paying closer attention to location quality, infrastructure, and developer reputation instead of chasing flashy promises. This guide looks at what first-time and mid-level investors often miss — and what deserves real attention before money changes hands.

Why Buyers Started Looking Beyond “Cheap Deals”

A few years ago, many investors hunted for the lowest price per square meter. That strategy aged badly in some markets. Cheap apartments in weak locations often stayed empty, while properties near transport hubs, business districts, and coastlines kept attracting tenants.

People learned the hard way: low price does not automatically mean good investment.

This is one reason buyers increasingly study projects created by established companies with visible portfolios and long-term planning. A modern property developer in Cyprus, for example, is no longer selling just an apartment. They are selling walkable neighborhoods, energy-efficient systems, parking access, sea views, and sometimes even coworking spaces inside residential complexes.

Sounds obvious, right? Yet plenty of people still buy property after seeing only three photos and a discount banner.

Location Still Wins — Every Single Time

People love debating design trends. Smart homes. Minimalist kitchens. AI-powered building systems. Fine. Interesting topics.

But location keeps deciding whether a property holds value.

Look at what happened in cities like Dubai, Limassol, Lisbon, and Athens over the last decade. Areas close to business centers, marinas, or major transit routes consistently pulled stronger rental demand. Meanwhile, isolated districts with cheaper entry prices often struggled.

Nobody wants a 90-minute commute, two bus changes, and a supermarket that closes at 7 p.m. People pay extra for convenience because daily comfort matters more than marketing brochures.

Before buying, walk around the area yourself. Morning. Evening. Weekend. Listen to the noise. Watch the traffic. Count how many cafés or pharmacies stay open late.

You learn more in 20 minutes on the street than in two hours of sales presentations.

The Hidden Costs That Hit New Investors

Here comes the part people avoid discussing.

The purchase price is not the real number.

Maintenance fees, insurance, taxes, furnishing, legal checks, parking costs, repair funds — all of it piles up quietly. Suddenly the “great investment opportunity” starts eating money every month.

A buyer may purchase a stylish apartment near the coast and later discover:

• the building charges high annual maintenance fees,
• underground parking costs extra,
• short-term rentals are restricted,
• internet service is unstable during tourist season.

Now imagine explaining that surprise to yourself after signing a long-term loan.

This is why experienced investors calculate monthly survival costs before expected profits. Boring? Maybe. Necessary? Absolutely.

New Buildings vs Older Apartments

The debate never ends.

New buildings attract investors because they look clean, modern, and efficient. Developers now advertise solar panels, smart access systems, air filtration, and EV charging stations almost everywhere. Buyers like fresh spaces. Tenants like them too.

Older properties have their own advantages. Bigger rooms. Central districts. Mature neighborhoods with real trees instead of decorative plants trying to survive in concrete.

But older buildings hide problems beautifully.

Fresh paint covers moisture damage. Stylish lighting distracts from old wiring. A renovated kitchen means little if the plumbing system belongs in 1998.

And honestly, some “luxury renovations” look great for six months and terrible after two winters.

Pay for inspections. Real ones. Not the five-minute walkthrough where somebody taps a wall dramatically and says everything looks fine.

Rental Income Is Not Passive Magic

This fantasy still sells well online: buy apartment, collect money, relax forever.

Reality looks messier.

Tenants move out unexpectedly. Air conditioners fail in July. Plumbing leaks on holidays. Local regulations change. Tourism drops. Interest rates shift. Property ownership includes routine headaches nobody posts about on Instagram.

Good investors usually prepare for quiet months instead of assuming permanent occupancy. They also keep reserve funds for repairs because buildings age whether markets rise or not.

Well, that sounds less exciting than “financial freedom by 30,” doesn’t it?

Still true.

Why Developer Reputation Matters More Than Advertising

Some developers build neighborhoods people enjoy living in. Others build attractive renders for billboards.

Big difference.

A strong developer usually leaves patterns behind: completed projects, maintained common spaces, stable management, decent materials, and fewer complaints from residents. Weak developers leave forums full of elevator problems, unfinished landscaping, and legal disputes.

Buyers today investigate everything online. Resident reviews. Delivery delays. Infrastructure promises. Construction quality. Even noise insulation gets discussed publicly now.

And frankly, that transparency changed the market. Developers can no longer hide poor quality behind polished marketing videos.

Smart Investors Watch Infrastructure

Here is a detail many beginners ignore: roads often matter more than pools.

A new highway connection, business center, university expansion, or metro station can change an entire district within a few years. Investors who understand infrastructure trends usually make calmer decisions because they look beyond the apartment itself.

Look at places where remote workers and international companies moved after 2020. Demand followed connectivity, safety, reliable utilities, and lifestyle comfort.

People increasingly want neighborhoods where they can walk to cafés, gyms, clinics, and grocery stores without turning daily life into a logistics operation.

Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Final Thoughts

Property investment looks simple from far away. Buy low, rent high, wait patiently. Real life rarely follows that clean script.

Good investments often come from boring decisions: strong location, reliable construction, manageable maintenance costs, and realistic expectations. Not hype. Not panic buying. Not social media pressure.

And perhaps that is the biggest shift in today’s market. Buyers have become less impressed by flashy promises and more interested in practical details they will live with every day.

Because after the contracts are signed and the excitement fades, somebody still has to pay the maintenance bill, wait for the elevator, and listen to the neighbors upstairs at midnight.

By Nathan Spears

Source link

Content warning: this article features graphic discussion of rape and sexual abuse. 

A US federal prosecutor has denied opening a case against a woman who claims Donald Trump raped her. But a source had told the legacy press that such a case is being pursued. It would be the latest of many sexual abuse scandals centering on the US president.

Writer E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of “raping her in the mid-1990s”. Trump and Carroll have already contested two cases heard in court.

Carrol is a former columnist for Elle Magazine. CBC reported:

The top federal prosecutor in Chicago denied on Thursday that his ‌office has launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the writer who accused U.S. President Donald Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s.

A person familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday that the Justice Department had begun an investigation, led by ​the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago, into whether Carroll committed ​perjury in testimony involving two civil lawsuits that she won against Trump.

U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros said:

The Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office can confirm that it has not opened — and has never opened — ​a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll.

Trump complications

An anonymous source previously told legacy media:

the probe involved testimony in Carroll’s successful cases, decided in 2023 and 2024, alleging Trump sexually abused her in a New York department store and defamed her by saying she was lying.

The new case, which federal lawyers deny is being developed, focuses on whether Carroll lied about her case being funded by a third party.

The anonymous source said:

the prosecutors’ move was based on a 2022 deposition statement by the former Elle magazine advice columnist that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit. Her lawyers later revealed ​that Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, had paid some of her legal bills.

A previous appeal found:

Ms. Carroll plausibly represented that she had forgotten ⁠about the limited outside funding counsel obtained in September 2020 when this question was first posed to ⁠her in 2022, and the additional discovery did not indicate otherwise.

CBC said:

A jury found ⁠in May 2023 that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll, and defamed her by ⁠lying, but did not rape her. Another jury in January 2024 found that ⁠he ⁠had defamed her and ordered him ​to pay $83.3 million US in damages.

Trump denies raping/sexually assaulting Carroll. In August 2024 a federal judge found the claim that the current US president had raped Carroll to be “substantially true.” However, the legal issue is complicated by the verdict of a jury in a civil case regarding the alleged sexual assault. USA Today reported that:

Under New York criminal law, an assault constitutes “rape” only if it involves vaginal penetration by a penis. That was the definition the jury was instructed to use in the civil case.

As such, the jury found that Carroll did not prove that Trump raped her, but did prove that Trump sexually abused her.

Trump settling old scores through abuse of the law

Trump uses the US legal system to settle old scores, CBC said:

Since Trump returned to the presidency for a second time, Democrats have accused him of seeking retribution against those who he believes have wronged him.

Adding:

Some have also accused acting U.S. attorney general Todd Blanche and his predecessor Pam Bondi of enabling Trump in those quests, undermining the independence of the Justice Department.

Other targets included:

former Trump national security adviser John Bolton, former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, although a judge dismissed the charges against James in late 2025.

And:

Investigations have also either been announced or uncovered by reporters concerning Sen. Adam Schiff, former CIA director John Brennan and first-term Trump administration members Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor.

The president was a long-time associate of paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. One Epstein file linked Trump with a murder in December 2025:

The report additionally details an accusation from a woman who claimed Trump and Epstein raped her. The woman said she wouldn’t call the police as “they will kill me”.

The woman was later found with her head “blown off”. Reportedly, officers at the scene said ‘there was no way it was a suicide’, although a coroner would later deem it to be self-inflicted.

Trump denies any wrongdoing. His accusers are numerous. Reports suggest at least 25 women have accused him of different forms of sexual violence. Time will tell if this new probe into Carroll emerges and if more women put forward allegations in the current febrile climate of legal repression. The US president is under legal and political pressure on many fronts – not least the Iran war. The victims of alleged sexual violence have often had their stories overshadowed by the churn of world events.

Featured image via Getty/Roberto Schmidt

By Joe Glenton

Source link

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) shouldn’t force people living with terminal illness and progressive, life-limiting conditions to undergo stressful, costly and unnecessary disability benefit reassessments.

So says a coalition of more than 30 organisations, led by end-of-life charity Marie Curie, in an open letter to DWP minister Stephen Timms.

Sent on 28 May to coincide with the Call for Evidence deadline for the Timms Review of Personal Independence Payments, the open letter describes the reform as a “clear and compassionate” way to protect people living with terminal illness and those with progressive life-limiting conditions.

DWP has a chance to make things better

The coalition argues that PIP reassessments represent an unacceptable burden. They force people already suffering with their health to prove they are unwell enough to receive support they will always need.

Instead, they should have assured and constant financial support until they die, so they can focus on what really matters – staying as well as possible and spending time with loved ones.

Signatories include, among others:

• Age UK.
• Amnesty International.
• MS Society.
• Parkinson’s UK.
• Trussell Trust.

The coalition adds:

• PIP is designed to help with the extra costs of disability. But for people who are dying or living with progressive, life-limiting conditions, reassessments can cause needless distress, uncertainty and financial anxiety at a time when every moment matters.
• Reassessing people whose conditions will only worsen adds little value for the DWP. Just 2% of PIP awards for people with Parkinson’s, dementia and Motor Neurone Disease are reduced on review. That’s despite each assessment costing around £282, raising concerns about both the human and financial cost.
• Lifetime awards for people in receipt of PIP via the Special Rules route are already in place in Scotland. This shows that a more compassionate system is both possible and practical.

Becca Stacey, Marie Curie senior policy manager, Financial Security, said:

Too many people living with terminal illness and progressive, life-limiting conditions are being forced to prove just how unwell they are, which is simply wrong.

These reassessments rarely change the outcome, but they cause real distress and uncertainty at a time when people should be focused on comfort, care and time with loved ones.

The UK government has a clear chance to fix this now. Ending reassessments and introducing lifetime awards for people with terminal and progressive, life-limiting conditions would create a fairer, more compassionate system that treats people with dignity.

Advertisement

Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said:

At Age UK we think it is inhumane to burden people in these sad situations, and their loved ones, with a full PIP reassessment.

It is also wasteful since in these circumstances there is usually no prospect of the reassessment concluding that the recipient is ineligible for support, for however time-limited the period they may need it.

That’s why we support Marie Curie in calling for these reassessments to end, and we sincerely hope that the Timms Review will provide the mechanism to enable this to happen.

Featured image via Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link