We received two emails today, just a few minutes apart. There are a couple of notable things about them. The first came from Claire Somebody at the Crown Office.
The second one, excitingly, came from Service Advisor 1989847 at Police Scotland, which we assume is some sort of advanced crime-fighting robot.
In one of those emails, readers, is a three-word phrase that raised our eyebrows just about right off our heads. Before we chat any more, see if it jumps out at you too.
Support staff at Ash Field Academy in Leicester were on strike from 3-5 June. This is part of a campaign to demand the reinstatement of victimised union rep Tom Barker.
Barker was suspended on 30 October 2025. After more than seven months, three separate investigations, and five investigation meetings, Discovery Schools Academy Trust [DSAT], which runs Ash Field, is still refusing to reinstate Barker.
Barker was suspended just three working days after UNISON members voted to strike over staffing cuts.
Andrea Egan, UNISON’s general secretary, was in attendance at the Thursday 4 June picket. Addressing the strikers, Egan said:
Tom has shown through his leadership on the disputes that have happened over the last couple of years that there is power in the workers, and that has clearly worried management.
On a national level, I am are here to say very clearly this union will not stand by when they [DSAT] attack our activists. We are not retreating; we’re actually going to step up our action.
If they are going to take us on, they are not taking Tom on, they are not taking members on, they are taking on this union, and this is a strong message they will now get.
They have had it up to now, but they’re clearly not listening, so we are going to up our side of it.
You have got the union behind you.
Louise Lewis, a member of the National Education Union’s national executive, also spoke at the rally. Lewis said:
Trying to silence reps instead of addressing the concerns raised does not solve the problem. It simply continues a culture where corners are cut and where both staff and students can be put at risk.
Today sends a different message. Today says that trade unionists stand together. That when a rep is targeted for standing up for staff and students, the wider movement responds with solidarity.
Because defending reps means defending every worker’s right to organise, to speak up, and to fight for safe and fair workplaces.
To Tom, and to every one of you taking action, you are not standing alone. Thank you for your courage, your solidarity, and your determination.
An injury to one is an injury to all.
Chris Willars, secretary of Leicester and District Trades Union Council, addressed strikers, saying:
We saw the article in the Leicester Mercury of Wednesday 20 May 2026 about the anti-bullying award given to Ash Field Academy.
The Academy has received the Positive and Peaceful Places award for its commitment to ‘creating a safe, inclusive and respectful environment for pupils, staff and the wider community’.
Having met a number of the staff, I recognise the description of the staff and can confirm that they are caring and supportive of the pupils and their colleagues.
It’s a shame that the management don’t seem to share these values.
After the conclusion of the Friday 5 June picket line, Sam Randfield, UNISON Leicester City branch secretary, added:
This week’s picket lines have been well-attended, with members still in good spirits despite DSAT’s stubborn refusal to end this dispute.
There is an obvious and easy route for them to do so. With a single email, they could bring Tom back to work and end all this disruption. Doing so would cost them absolutely nothing.
If they fail to do so, then this dispute is going to escalate. That isn’t what anyone wants. But our members will not stand by while the Trust continues to pursue their anti-union vendetta. We call again upon DSAT leaders to bring Tom back to work and reset their relationship with UNISON.
Around 40 UNISON members and supporters attended the Ash Field picket, including members of the NEU, PCS, GMB, UCU, UNITE and Leicester and District Trades Union Council.
UNISON has now issued notice of further strike action on the following dates (inclusive):
15 – 19 June
6 – 9 July
Featured image supplied
By The Canary
Public spaces are shaped by more than furniture, lighting, layout and service. Sound plays a major role in how a space feels from the moment someone walks through the door.
A café can feel warm and relaxed. A gym can feel energetic and focused. A hotel lobby can feel calm and polished. A retail store can feel premium, lively or rushed, depending not only on how it looks, but on what customers hear while they are there.
For many businesses, background music is still treated as a small detail. Something to fill silence, or something staff put on quickly at the start of the day.
But sound affects atmosphere, mood, dwell time, staff experience and brand perception. Used well, it can make a public space feel more welcoming, consistent and memorable. Used badly, it can make even a well-designed venue feel chaotic or forgettable.
Most customers begin forming an impression of a business before they speak to a member of staff. They notice the lighting, layout, smell, temperature and general feel of the room.
Sound is part of that first impression.
The right background music can help businesses create:
If the music is too loud, badly matched or constantly interrupted by adverts, it can change the whole mood of a space. Customers may not consciously think, “the music is wrong,” but they may feel less relaxed, less inclined to browse or less likely to stay.
The goal is not simply to play music. It is to create the right feeling for the space.
Many businesses leave music decisions to whoever is on shift. That can lead to random playlists, inconsistent volume, sudden changes in mood or tracks that do not suit the customer base.
This matters because music becomes part of the customer experience. It influences how people move through a space, how comfortable they feel, how easily they can talk and how they remember the business afterwards.
A more considered approach helps businesses avoid common problems such as:
A professional background music system gives businesses more control. Instead of relying on random playlists or personal preference, venues can choose music that fits their brand, audience and pace of the day.
Good background music should support what customers are doing in the space.
In retail, music can support browsing and brand identity. In cafés and restaurants, it can support conversation, comfort and atmosphere. In gyms and fitness studios, it can add energy and pace. In hotels, spas and salons, it can help create a calmer, more premium experience.
Different spaces need different sound:
When businesses treat music as part of the customer journey, it becomes more than background noise. It becomes a practical way to shape the experience.
For businesses, music is not only a question of taste. It is also a question of professionalism, consistency and licensing.
Using background music for businesses allows venues to create a more controlled sound environment. It helps businesses avoid the problems that come with random public playlists, adverts, unsuitable tracks or inconsistent staff choices.
For multi-site businesses, this becomes even more important. Customers should feel a sense of consistency whether they visit one location or another. Staff should not have to improvise the soundtrack each day. Managers should not have to rely on guesswork.
A professional background music solution can help with:
This gives businesses a structured way to manage sound, rather than leaving one of the most noticeable parts of the customer experience to chance.
Customers may spend half an hour, an hour or an afternoon in a space. Staff may spend an entire shift there.
That means background music affects employees as well as customers. If the sound is too loud, repetitive, distracting or poorly matched to the environment, it can make work feel more tiring. Staff may have to raise their voices, repeat themselves or deal with a space that feels more stressful than it needs to be.
A welcoming public space is created by many details working together: lighting, layout, service, cleanliness, signage, temperature and sound.
When businesses choose sound with care, they create public spaces that feel more comfortable, more consistent and more aligned with their brand. Customers stay longer. Staff work in a better environment. The business feels more intentional.
A good soundtrack should not overpower a space. It should support it. And when it does, background music becomes part of what makes customers want to come back.
With grim predictability, the far-right US government has waded into the controversy surrounding the tragic death of Henry Nowak. A US State Department post on social media offered mealy-mouthed “condolences” to Henry’s family, though only after a tight string of fascist dogwhistles.
In particular, the Trump administration repeated Farage’s ridiculous ‘two-tier’ anti-white policing claim. This is fitting, given the Reform UK leader shamelessly exploited Nowak’s murder to attack DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives.
As the Canary previously pointed out, Farage clearly received this talking point directly from Trump’s fascist America. In the UK, ‘DEI’ is better known as ‘EDI’ (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion).
Beyond this, the ‘two-tier’ policing claim is also a classic example of the abuse tactic reversing the victim and offender, writ large. Two-tier policing very much exists, only to the clear detriment of Black and Brown people across the UK.
On the night of 4 June, the US State Department posted on social media:
Ideological conditioning and two-tiered policing are glaring symptoms of civilizational decline. They must be rejected across the West.
The United States sends our condolences to the family of Henry Nowak and the people of the United Kingdom at this troubling time.
As we keep having to repeat, Nowak’s family expressed their wishes that their son’s death wouldn’t be used to spread hatred and division. However, it’s completely unsurprising that the US government is doing just that by repeating dogwhistle claims of ‘two-tiered policing‘.
Likewise, the claim of “civilizational decline” is, at its heart, a fascist talking point. As Oxford professor of modern history James McDougall pointed out just before Trump’s first term:
Fascism brings a masculinist, xenophobic nationalism that claims to “put the people first” while turning them against one another. […]
A view of the world is presented that is centred on fears of “national suicide” and civilisational decline, in which whites are demographically overwhelmed by “inferior” peoples, minorities and immigrants.
Meanwhile, the claim to ‘two-tier policing’ in the UK is obviously correct, though in the exact opposite manner to which Farage and his fash buddies intended it.
On 4 June, Stephen Parkinson – director of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service – explained that:
There is disproportionality in the criminal justice system. There’s an evidential basis for that. We have published research by Leeds University examining prosecution decisions. We updated that the end of last year.
It does demonstrate conclusively that there is disproportionality, by which I mean that there’s a greater likelihood of being prosecuted if you come from an ethnic group that is not white British.
Your starting point was two-tier justice, and I think recent publicity has been along the lines of: are people from ethnic minorities favoured in some way? The evidence that I’m aware of around disproportionality goes the other way.
That two-tier justice favouring white people is particularly evident in the Hampshire police – the same force which arrested Henry Nowak for a fabricated racialised assault, even as he lay dying of five stab wounds.
As the Guardian highlighted, the most recent policing data shows that officers across England and Wales are 3.8 times more likely to use stop and search powers against a Black person than a white person. However, in Hampshire, that disproportionality shoots up to 5.1 times.
Worse still, the problem has only increased in recent years. In 2023-4, Hampshire police were 4.1 times more likely to stop a Black person. That rose to 4.8 times in 2024-5, and then to 5.1 times in 2025-6.
The UK’s police force is an institutionally racist arm of an institutionally racist state, and rotten to its very core. Figures like Farage, who claim that even half-hearted efforts at reform are evidence of ‘anti-white racism’, actively endanger the pitiful progress towards equality the UK has tried to make.
The Reform UK leader, the Trump administration and their ilk know exactly what they’re doing. They want to ensure that the racist status quo remains, that it becomes even more firmly entrenched. They’ll use any lie, trick, and power at their disposal to do so.
Anything to continue to expand white supremacy.
Featured image via Getty/Jonathan Bachman
Newly revealed documents expose Labour’s Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander as a devoted friend of Peter Mandelson, publicly humiliating his position.
Mandelson was “influential,” in Alexander’s own words, in securing his seat as MP for Lothian East. The SNP have called for the minister’s resignation over his apparently doting relationship with Mandelson.
The disgraced corrupt former ambassador and friend of notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein was well-known, well-loved, and well-connected within the Labour Party. Him and pro-corporate stooge Tony Blair shaped vile New Labour through a willingness to court power, whatever ugly face it took.
However, those tight connections across the right wing (now mainstream) of the Labour Party are coming back to bite. It’s about time for figures like Alexander who so willingly courted Mandy’s ilk.
These recent revelations come after the government realised over 1,000 pages of documents relating to the Dark Lord’s appointment as UK ambassador to the US by Starmer-McSweeney.
In the files it’s clear that Douglas Alexander was in regular contact with Mandelson prior to his appointment as ambassador. He also credits Mandelson with his selection and election as an MP in 2024.
Writing to Mandy about his chances of getting elected at the 2024 general election, Alexander said:
There’s v little enthusiasm for Labour but a quiet determination to secure change which is our greatest ally.
You could say that again – and again. But most revealing was on 7 July 2024, three days after the general election, following Alexander’s appointment as Trade Minister. He wrote to Mandelson declaring:
You probably don’t realise quite how influential you’ve been in this whole improbable journey.
He is essentially crediting Mandelson with helping him to secure the win. As the Canary previously reported, Mandelson was instrumental in Labour NEC 2024 general election selection procedures.
Alexander said publicly in May that Mandelson “should not have been appointed”. Yet following Mandelson’s appointment back in December 2024, Alexander messaged Mandy directly to say it was:
good news for you, for the government and for the country.
Alexander is far from alone. Mandelson was also congratulated by then-Scottish Secretary, Ian Murray, Alexander’s predecessor in-post. Murray messaged Mandy:
Congratulations your excellency. What a wonderful appointment.
It goes right to the top, too. Darren Jones, for example, privately messaged to say he was “so sorry” to see Mandy sacked in disgrace in September 2025.
It was common knowledge throughout that Mandelson had been twice sacked from ministerial positions and was also close friends with pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Mandelson was involved in ‘dumping’ Labour candidates before the 2024 election
The SNP reacted quickly, calling for Alexander to quit his role as Scottish Secretary over the revelations. One SNP MSP in particular, Alex Kerr, did not hold back:
Douglas Alexander was a mere puppet for his master Mandelson and these shadowy redactions just make this sinister affair all the more despicable.
Douglas Alexander must resign and the public must be given full disclosure on whether our national security has been threatened by meetings at the instruction of Peter Mandelson.
SNP Westminster leader Dave Doogan wrote to the government’s independent standards adviser:
Despite clear obligations and processes to transparently log ministerial meetings, Mr Alexander failed to publicly declare this meeting with Peter Mandelson’s lobbying firm for a year and a half.
The SNP have now gone a step further. They’ve demanded a probe into whether Mandelson’s influence might have constituted a ministerial code breach by Alexander.
The recently revealed files indicate that Alexander was introduced to a lobbying firm with ties to foreign states Russia and China. This was not declared at the time or since.
The lobbying firm Global Counsel was set up in 2010 by Mandelson for a lucrative career after repeatedly failing in his duties to the public as an MP and multi-minister. Mandelson stepped down as director in 2024 but remains financially staked in the company.
The messages reveal that Alexander’s very first meeting, via online call, was — perhaps unsurprisingly — with that same lobbying firm, Global Counsel. Funny coincidence, eh?
Featured image via Stefan Rousseau/WPA Pool/Getty Images
The past week in Parliament has seen two major blows for AI-peddler Palantir. In a highly unusual Commons debate, MPs including Jeremy Corbyn laid bare the links that disgraced ambassador Peter Mandelson forged between the UK government and the authoritarian US tech company.
Mandelson lost his position after his ties to pedophile ringleader Jeffrey Epstein came to light. In a blow to PM Keir Starmer, it later transpired that Mandelson was handed the ambassadorial post in spite of failing his security vetting.
Meanwhile, an influential cross-party science committee condemned the public sector’s increasing reliance of Palantir’s AI as placing the UK “at the mercy” of foreign actors.
On 3 June, the Science, Information and Technology Select Committee warned that “Palantir’s increasing presence” in the public sector is an “unacceptable point of weakness”. Committee member and Lib Dem MP Martin Wrigley, told the Canary he was “delighted” with the conclusion:
We cannot continue to rely upon American technology […] especially when this one is a ‘software as a service’, so it’s entirely virtual – the NHS doesn’t have any hardware or any software,and they could pull it from underneath us at any time, at the whim of Donald Trump, or if there were any difficulty, or even if the contract stops abruptly. It could just go.
Wrigley also took the opportunity to reiterate a statement he made in the Commons debate on 3 June:
Yesterday, I got a letter from Louis Mosley [UK Palantir CEO] telling me that Peter Mandelson was not involved in Palantir’s defence contract in the UK. However, this is directly contradicted by a statement Jeremy Corbyn made in the house yesterday. I’m waiting for the evidence from Jeremy Corbyn, but of the two of them, I think I believe Jeremy Corbyn.
In the Commons, Wrigley mentioned that Palantir was all over the Mandelson files. That included:
a memo in which [Mandelson] tries to introduce Peter Thiel to No. 10 staff in June last year.
Minister for the cabinet Nick Thomas-Symonds denied that allegation strenuously. Rejecting the “suggestion that there is any wrongdoing” regarding the renewal of the Palantir contracts, he added:
I reject that absolutely. On the meeting between the Prime Minister and Peter Thiel, to be clear, that did not happen.
Note the slippage here. Wrigley talked about a meeting with Downing Street staff; Thomas-Symonds denied a meeting with Starmer. Those two things are not the same.
When it came time for Corbyn to make his speech, he began by lamenting the pitiful number of MPs attending. The debate, he acknowledged:
goes to the heart of so much about the political system of this country, and the power and influence of very wealthy people around the world.
He thanked Alex Davies-Jones for centering the victims of Epstein and his golden circle, before moving on the the central subject of Mandelson. He recalled a conversation with ex-Labour MP Tony Benn, who:
recognised that Mandelson’s whole objective was a political one: to take the Labour party away from its roots—away from its trade union connections and the working-class communities—and to turn it into a party of business.
Of course, there was no more pertinent illustration of Mandelson’s corrupt connections between business and government than Palantir.
Corbyn apparently came to the debate fully prepared. He launched into a play-by-play account of the Palantir scandal, beginning:
On 22 July 2025—less than a year ago—Peter Mandelson sent an email to Morgan McSweeney. The subject was a name: Peter Thiel [Palantir co-founder]. Mandelson wrote: “This celebrated techie is in London til Aug 9. I don’t know whether you have been approached already,” saying it would be good for the PM to meet him—so the ambassador to Washington starts trying to set up meetings with a tech entrepreneur who happens to be a friend and supporter of Donald Trump.
That damning email was from the second wave of the Mandelson files. It was one of many in which the disgraced ambassador “personally connected” Palantir to the UK Government.
The Islington MP also highlighted that Mandelson, at the time, still owned consulting company Global Counsel. In fact, he disregarded official advice to divest himself of his stake in the company in 2024. And, of course, Palantir was a Global Counsel client. As Corbyn put it:
Is that corrupt or what?
Corbyn also appeared to correct Thomas-Symonds on his little mistake regarding the alleged meeting:
We also know that the Prime Minister met representatives of the firm with Peter Mandelson in Washington. That was the mysterious meeting that apparently nobody was at, although it did happen; of which there is no record, and yet everybody was there; and during which no discussion went on because nothing was reported, and yet we all know that it took place because they were filmed going into it.
That non-meeting took place just two weeks after Mandelson started as ambassador. Likewise, mere days later, he attended the Hill and Valley Forum in Washington – a noted mixer for US congress members and weapons-tech specialists. Corbyn highlighted that:
the file notes that Mandelson was attending “with Louis”, who we understand to be Louis Mosley, the head of Palantir’s UK business. And so, this very tight connection of people goes on.
According to Ethan Shone of openDemocracy, Mandelson’s security “mitigations” forbade such one-to-one meetings with former clients like Palantir—a restriction which, like divestment from Global Counsel, the former ambassador assiduously ignored.
Corbyn concluded by, in turn, reinforcing the science select committee’s message:
Are we seriously saying that we, as a society and country, are incapable of setting up our own technology arrangement? I do want data sharing within the NHS. […] I want that technology in place for A&E departments, but I do not want those records to be shared with a company that is busy advising Israel on how it will go about its bombardment of Gaza and trying to get hold of other contracts all around the world.
Sadly, Starmer’s government apparently believes this country truly is that incapable. This week alone, it announced yet another deal with Palantir – this time a £90,000 contract to manage a UK firearms database. The contract may be signed and sealed as early as 11 June.
Featured image via Getty/Eugene Gologursky
Five Just Stop Oil supporters who have served prison sentences of up to 15 months for planning an action at Heathrow airport that never took place have had their convictions upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Rosa Hicks, Adam Beard, Sean O’Callaghan, Sally Davidson and Hannah Schafer were among eight Just Stop Oil supporters convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance after standing trial before Judge Duncan at Isleworth Crown Court in March 2025.
A ninth supporter was acquitted and another pleaded guilty before trial. Of the nine convicted, five were given jail terms of up to 15 months, while the remaining four were given suspended sentences.
They were the first people to be jailed in this country for an agreement to take part in nonviolent direct action, where no actual damage or disruption resulted.
In separate appeals heard on 12 May, the five argued that their convictions were unsafe. This followed a report from one juror to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal that another juror had made internet searches about the defendants and the Just Stop Oil campaign and shared highly prejudicial and partially false information within the jury room.
The Appeal heard evidence about the inadequacy of the police investigation that followed the report of misconduct. In particular, the police returned to the suspect juror two electronic devices which were clearly relevant to the case, which compromised them as evidential sources, and made no meaningful efforts to access the suspect juror’s two iPhones. No credible explanation was advanced by the police for these investigative failings.
At a preparatory hearing ahead of the appeal and prior to the suspect juror’s search history data being obtained, the government’s barrister Paul Jarvis claimed that the juror who had reported the jury misconduct was lying despite there being an ongoing police investigation into the matter.
In a ruling on 5 June, three senior judges – Andrew Edis, Maura McGowan and Martin Griffiths dismissed all the grounds for appeal and upheld the conviction.
We are sad that the Court of Appeal has chosen to uphold our convictions despite overwhelming evidence that something went very wrong in the jury room, but we are of course not surprised.
The outcome of our appeal today marks a growing trend of using the justice system to crackdown on people trying to hold the powerful to account, be that the fossil fuel industry or the companies selling arms to Israel.
The appeal judgement changes nothing. Last month was the hottest, driest May in the UK since records began and our government and institutions are still failing in their most basic duty to protect us.
Whilst a successful appeal would have come with some personal benefit, our appeal has revealed something much more consequential for the rule of law.
Our conviction was engineered by a Judge who directed the jury to ignore evidence related to the climate crisis, which the judge referred to as a matter of opinion.
This was despite undisputed evidence admitted in court, that global heating will have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity.
It’s not surprising if trust breaks down when judges actively mislead a jury. That is where the responsibility for juror misconduct lies.
In cases like ours, when it must be obvious to jurors that so much is being kept from them inside the courtroom it makes sense that they might go looking for clues outside.
Throughout the appeal process, there has been a series of delays and misdirections on behalf of the crown. Not only did the police lose key evidence but they made attempts to close the investigation into juror misconduct prior to vital evidence being obtained.
Perhaps most shocking of all, despite an ongoing police investigation into the matter, the lawyer for the CPS repeatedly claimed that the juror who reported the juror misconduct was lying. The police and Crown Prosecution Service maintaining their prosecutions at all costs is not justice.
We did not seek to blame any of the jurors who tried us. We want to thank the juror who came forward to blow the whistle on what happened in the jury room during our trial. They have shown courage and integrity, they didn’t have to speak up, but they did.
The Heathrow 10 were arrested on 24 July 2024, on the first day of the Oil Kills International Uprising to end fossil fuels.
During their trial the judge removed all legal defences from the jury’s consideration, ruled the climate emergency to be ‘irrelevant’ and forbade defendants from mentioning that a jury has a right to acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience.
The defendants were not permitted to bring expert witnesses on international law or climate science or to show the jury videos they recorded of themselves speaking before the action, nor were they allowed to read the quotes from news articles about their arrests and subsequent remand to prison.
Featured image via Just Stop Oil
By The Canary
The post ‘The elites have never stopped sneering since’ appeared first on spiked.
Labour MP Jess Asato has announced that she has initiated a legal test case against Elon Musk’s xAI. The case will take to task Grok AI’s creation of fake, pornographic and derogatory content seen in January.
Attracting particular condemnation is the fact that the AI tool produced a demeaning, offensive and frankly, dangerous video which showed the MP:
being chloroformed and prepared for sexual assault.
Grok AI and its prolific creation of sexualised content, including of young children, has prompted widespread anger as it became clear the business model was happy to make money out of the most abusive and sinister views held by paedophiles, perverts, and rapists.
It then comes as little surprise that others affected by Grok have now joined the legal test case against Musk following Jess Asato’s decision to confront the billionaire head-on.
The legal case specifically argues that xAI violated data protection law and breached Asato’s private information when it permitted the images to be created.
New claimants seek to sue Elon Musk’s xAI after Labour MP’s test case — dave lawrence
Jess Asato’s lawyer says others want to take action over demeaning sexualised material created by Grok AI toolhttps://t.co/XYOs5Lutlw
(@dave43law) June 5, 2026
Back in January, Musk’s AI tool Grok generated approximately 3 million sexualised pictures in less than two weeks, which researchers said:
became an industrial-scale machine for the production of sexual abuse material.
One concerning aspect to this is the fact that the AI tool had no issues with requests such as “remove her clothes” or “put her in a bikini”. In reality, the tool will generate almost anything a user asks for – including these sexualised images of women without consent. Subsequently, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) launched an inquiry into Grok AI and the images it has produced.
Justifiably, many women feel their privacy is being undermined. After all, even when victims know the images are fake, they can still look real enough to humiliate, demean, and leave people feeling exposed. Let’s face it, if it didn’t, these kinds of men wouldn’t be so interested.
Moreover, its creation of child sexual abuse content drives home the fact that this tool has played into incredibly sinister, pervasive, and perverted mentalities amongst abusive men. When women and girls already face rising levels of abuse and violence, this increased threat financed by a soon-to-be trillionaire is a worrying sign for the direction of travel in the West.
Therefore, it is restoring to see victims of this abuse stepping forward to hold the tech giant to account for the abuse he has fostered and facilitated.
The legal director of the law firm AWO, Ravi Naik, confirmed to the Guardian he is acting for “multiple individuals”, and stated on the firm’s website:
At its heart, this case is about a single principle – that AI developers must answer for the way they design their tools. Where there is a wrong, the law must provide a remedy – and that is as true of artificial intelligence as of anything else.
No one should be subjected to abuse like this, and no one should have to instruct a lawyer to get images like these taken down.
This content existed because of design choices made by xAI, and technology of this kind does not simply happen. It is built, and it is built deliberately. Grok was designed in a way that permitted the creation of non-consensual, sexualised and misogynistic images of women – and that outcome was a choice, not a glitch.
This is one of the first claims to test liability for the design of an AI system, and we hope it will make it clear to AI developers that safety cannot be an afterthought.
Asato has spoken to the “psychologically distressing” impact it has as a woman to have fake nude images made without consent, and insists that her legal challenge is necessary to ensure that AI companies have a responsibility in what it’s products enable, stating:
Grok created deepfake pornography and sexualised content which harmed thousands of women and children.
Its ability is not an accident, nor misuse, it is a design choice by its creators. In launching this case, I am pursuing accountability for those choices.
I hope this legal action also gives voice to the thousands of victims in the UK, women, girls and horrifically even children, who were abused by Grok. I am calling on anyone in the UK who experienced the misuse of their image or video by Grok to come forward and support our legal claim.
This escalating abuse targeting Asato came after she called for the introduction of an anti-nudification act to combat these sexualised attacks.
Let’s be honest, serious – and thus proven – concerns exist that men will misuse this AI tool if allowed to. Even if Musk insists that is not its intended purpose, creeps can still exploit it to create and spread harmful material under the radar. Especially when its creators do nothing to stop it and instead, draw profits from such sordid interests.
Going further, a particular worry is that when tech platforms don’t properly guard against this kind of pervasive use, it starts to normalise it. And once that happens, it becomes easier for sexualised harassment and abuse to spread, escalate, and feel even more acceptable online. Needless to say, as we see generally in society, what becomes normalised online soon becomes normalised in daily life.
As a result, women, girls and children are left increasingly exposed to harm – and one of the world’s most powerful men is enabling it.
Whether Musk will take heed of this legal challenge awaits to be seen – he didn’t seem concerned back in January when this happened. In fact, he shared hateful abuse fired at Asato after she objected to the harm caused by the ‘bikinification’ trend. Signalling his escalatory influence, that is when the deepfake video showing her being chloroformed was produced and thus replied to Musk’s retweet.
It remains to be seen whether the government will show any real backbone in holding tech giants like Musk to account. Even while criticising his “extreme personal views”, Peter Kyle still found time to describe him as a “successful innovator and commercialiser of innovation”. Last year, he even stated the government must “respect and engage with” Musk who he called an “unignorable force”.
That kind of mixed messaging – condemning on one hand while praising on the other – does little to suggest ministers are prepared to take on real power.
Once again, a powerful and controversial figure gets wrapped up in talk of being “complex”, rather than being judged on the real-world impact of his actions. If the government keeps talking out of both sides of its mouth, it’s hard to see how it will ever seriously rein in Big Tech.
Featured image via Getty/Joe Raedle
The post Henry Nowak: why we should rage against two-tier policing appeared first on spiked.
Green Party Leader Zack Polanski is under fire for calling for potential British-Israeli dual national war criminals to be investigated. The Jewish News platformed commentators who conflated criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism over Polanski’s signing of a Declassified UK letter calling for basic accountability.
Polanski, who is Jewish, signed the 26 May letter. Declassified and the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians are running a campaign to force police to investigate Brits who served in the Israeli military during the genocide. You can read the Canary’s report here.
The campaign letter reads:
We, the undersigned, are politicians, lawyers, campaigners, human rights defenders, journalists, and concerned members of the public who believe the public interest is best served by monitoring the entry of British-Israeli dual national citizens into the UK and investigating potential links to war crimes, in cases where they have served in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).
Over 2000 Brits have served in the genocide, yet UK police have refused to investigate. The letter makes two recommendations:
Implement a disclosure requirement regarding service in the Israeli military, subjecting travellers with Israeli travel documents or arriving from an origin of Tel Aviv airport to potential secondary screening at ports of entry under domestic war crimes inadmissibility rules and/or adjusted visa policies.
Conduct robust, impartial and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, in compliance with the obligation to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes.
Jewish Leadership Council Public Affairs Director Russell Langer told Jewish News:
At a time of rising antisemitism, it is particularly disturbing to see calls for the monitoring of dual British-Israeli citizens. Demonisation of Israelis is not a criticism of a foreign government but the targeting of a group of people for their nationality.
Such hatred risks making British Jews, many of whom have close family and social connections to Israel, a target for hostility and violence.
A spokesperson for the Board of Deputies said:
This petition seems to be another attempt to demonise Israelis and promote an atmosphere of intimidation against British Jews.
It is an example of what the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Jonathan Hall KC has described as the ignoring of conventions against the promotion of collective hatred against a nationality in the case of Israelis.
The spokesperson added:
The call of those who have signed it, including Zack Polanski, to treat people as potential criminals just because of their passport is a unique and wholly unacceptable form of discrimination.
The conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism – and with a general critique of the settler-colonial state of Israel – has always been a scurrilous thing. Almost three years of genocide has diminished the power of this attack line. Previously indifferent publics now understand the colonialist nature of the Israeli project and the roles of the US and UK.
Polanski has his shortcomings – the Canary isn’t shy about pointing them out – but on this the Green leader is absolutely correct.
Featured image via Getty/Ryan Jenkinson
By Joe Glenton
Jade Biosciences, Inc. (JBIO) Discusses Positive Interim Results From JADE101 Phase I Healthy Volunteer Study and Development Plans Transcript
SpaceX just won a second Golden Dome contract. This one is $4.16 billion.
SHE IS KILLING XRP!!! WATCH URGENT AND ACT FAST
French Open 2026 results: Alexander Zverev beats Rafael Jodar and will play Jakub Mensik in semi-finals
FIRST NIGHT REVIEW: Take That bring the Circus back to life in spectacular sun-soaked style
Is the Spurs Phenom Already Better Than Prime Diesel?
CryZENx Releases Fresh Playable Content Deep Inside Jabu-Jabu for His Ocarina of Time Remake
The House | Inside Andy Burnham’s Makerfield Campaign: “Nobody Thinks This Is In The Bag”
LBank Surpasses 25 Million Users Worldwide as AFA Partnership Continues to Drive Global Growth
Trump Taps Housing Chief Bill Pulte as Acting Intelligence Director After Gabbard Exit
Weak ‘Supergirl’ Box Office Tracking Amid Milly Alcock Backlash
Bruce Willis’ Generosity Resurfaces Amid His Dementia
One of the Greatest Sitcoms of All Time Shoots Up Apple TV’s Charts 11 Years Later
Demand Conditions Improve In Chemicals Sector In April 2026
MicroStrategy Moves $30 Million in BTC to Coinbase Prime: Is the Bitcoin Sell-Off Already Here?
Seagate (STX) Stock Surges to Record High on AI Boom and Legal Settlement
Everything you need to know as Cambridge’s Strawberry Fair returns after cancelled year
Britney Spears Shares Troubling Update After Hard Year
EU AI Data Center Project Faces Delays as Funding Gaps Grow
US-led AI investments risk capital destruction: Chris Wood
You must be logged in to post a comment Login