Connect with us
DAPA Banner
DAPA Coin
DAPA
COIN PAYMENT ASSET
PRIVACY · BLOCKDAG · HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION · RUST
ElGamal Encrypted MINE DAPA
🚫 GENESIS SOLD OUT
DAPAPAY COMING

Politics

Yvette Cooper was warned her Palestine Action article could bias jury, but ‘went ahead anyway’

Published

on

The Filton 6, part of the Filton 24

The Filton 6, part of the Filton 24

The courts warned Yvette Cooper that her newspaper article on the proscription of Palestine Action ran the risk of biasing the jury during the trial of several members of the group. However, the then-home-secretary “went ahead anyway”.

Defense lawyers attempted to have the case thrown out on the grounds that Cooper had prejudiced proceedings. However, the presiding judge – Justice Johnson – ruled that Palestine Action’s proscription “required public justification”.

‘Not lawful protest’

Reporting restrictions have now been lifted on the trial of Palestine Action activists who raided an Elbit Systems factory in Bristol in 2024. Elbit is the largest producer of arms for Israel, which is currently committing genocide against the Palestinian people.

Back in August 2025, Cooper wrote an article for the Observer under the headline:

Advertisement

Yvetter Cooper: Palestine Action ‘is not lawful protest’

The article claimed that the charges against the group included “a terrorism connection” in the eyes of the CPS.

Because of the lifted restrictions, we now know that the CPS warned Cooper that her article ran the risk of prejudicing the jury. Likewise, as the Canary’s Skwawkbox reported at the time:

On Sunday 17 August, campaign group Defend Our Juries levelled a contempt of court complaint against the home secretary Yvette Cooper over an article in the Observer. Notably, this was after she made repeated insinuations that the government proscribed Palestine Action because of violence against people.

However, the former home secretary didn’t let that stop her.

‘She went ahead anyway’

Last November, as part of a previously unpublishable pre-trial ruling, Johnson wrote that:

Advertisement

It is to be taken that the home secretary was specifically advised that going ahead with the article might prejudice these proceedings, and that she went ahead anyway … The CPS made representations to the home secretary about the risk of prejudice.

It follows that the home secretary took the action that she did, and made the public statements that she did, in the knowledge that these proceedings were extant and that there might well be a question as to the impact of her conduct and her statements on these proceedings.

The defendants’ lawyers argued that Cooper’s public statements made a fair trial impossible. They submitted written statements alleging that the Observer article was:

dripping in innuendo. In one breath, she is saying that many important details cannot yet be publicly reported; in another, she is reporting some of those very details herself.

However, Johnson ruled against this defence. Instead, he argued that:

The decision to proscribe Palestine Action was highly controversial and required public justification. It is unsurprising that the government sought publicly to justify the decision that it had taken and that it relied, in general terms (without naming individuals), on Palestine Action’s activities, including the activities that have resulted in these proceedings.

In doing so, the home secretary ran a risk of causing some prejudice to these proceedings, but that is different from deliberately flouting a reporting restriction order.

Advertisement

Violence and property damage?

It’s noteworthy that Cooper’s article made serious allegations of violence against Palestine Action. She stated that:

Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for – and promoted on its website – attacks that have seen those allegedly involved subsequently charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary.

However, in its policy paper ‘Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations’, the government felt no such need to inform the public of the group’s alleged violence. The paper instead focuses almost solely on property damage and related offences:

In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the government. These include attacks at Thales in Glasgow in 2022, and in 2024 at Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. The seriousness of these attacks includes the extent and nature of damage caused, including to targets affecting UK national security, and the impact on innocent members of the public.

The state proscribed Palestine Action back in July 2025. However, the policy paper was last updated in January 2026, long after Cooper’s article. So, some questions arise here.

If it was so important to get the information out about Palestine Action’s alleged violence that Cooper could risk biasing a jury ahead of an important trial, why isn’t it in the policy paper? Why, instead, did the former home secretary publish this crucial public justification in the Observer, a paywalled news site?

Advertisement

Ultimately, all defendants in the Filton trial were acquitted of the charge of “violent disorder”. Samuel Corner, charged with “grievous bodily harm”, was also only found guilty of a lesser charge, with the jury finding he injured a police officer “without intent.”

Further sentencing

In February 2026, the High Court ruled the government proscription of Palestine Action to be unlawful.

Regarding the recent retrial, as of 12 May 2026, defendants Jordan Devlin and Zoe Rogers have been acquitted. Their four comrades were convicted after the trial judge forbade any mention of the jury’s legal right to acquit on conscience.

As Skwawkbox explained for the Canary, the government wants those four – Samuel Corner, Charlotte Head, Leona Kamio and Fatema Rajwani – sentenced as terrorists. They were convicted of criminal damage, rather than any terror offence.

Advertisement

Sentencing will take place at Woolwich Crown Court on 12 June 2026.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

‘Frame Mogging’ And ‘Jestermaxxing’ And Other Manosphere-Coded Terms Explained For Parents

Published

on

'Frame Mogging' And 'Jestermaxxing' And Other Manosphere-Coded Terms Explained For Parents

If you’ve heard your kids talk about looksmaxxing, mewing, jestermaxxing, or more recently, frame mogging, it might be time to gently explore where all this is coming from.

For those who aren’t chronically online and have absolutely no knowledge of these terms, I’ll quickly help fill you in on what they mean – and why you should keep a closer eye on your teen’s behaviour if you hear them discussing these terms.

What is looksmaxxing?

‘Looksmaxxing’ describes the improvement of physical appearance, commonly through a number of practices which range in intensity – from using skincare to undergoing surgery.

Advertisement

While there’s nothing wrong in wanting to take pride in your appearance – indeed, having a skincare routine and using SPF, staying hydrated, eating a balanced diet and exercising are all great ways to look after yourself – looksmaxxing can take things to the extremes.

It’s a phenomenon that’s been catapulted from the manosphere – a collection of websites and forums that typically promote masculinity, some of which amplify misogynistic views – to the mainstream.

One online streamer known as Clavicular claims to have “looksmaxxed” himself from the age of 14 through a combination of exercise, steroids, surgery and taking a hammer to his face (also referred to as “bonesmashing”).

But experts have concerns over how the quest to looksmaxx impacts teens during a crucial period in development – and a time when self-esteem is typically pretty low.

Advertisement

Dr Candice O’Neil, psychologist at Ontic Psychology, previously told Patient looksmaxxing has the potential to “influence young people’s feelings about themselves and behaviours both implicitly and overtly”.

She explained: “This becomes unhealthy when it moves from general self-improvement and wellbeing practices into a preoccupation with their appearance – particularly when that involves constant comparison with others or extreme adjustments to food and exercise. This can also lead to deep feelings of poor self-worth and self-concept.”

Over time, this might begin to impact a person’s mental health and potentially lead to disordered eating, body dysmorphia, obsessive and compulsive behaviours, or self-harm.

What is mewing?

Advertisement

Mewing is one of the practices some are trying in the pursuit of looksmaxxing. It involves pressing the tongue firmly against the roof of your mouth, with a view to reshape the jawline.

Does it work? Dr Baldeep Farmah, aesthetic doctor at Dr Aesthetica, said “no credible research supports the jaw restructuring looksmaxxing communities promise”.

What is jestermaxxing?

Similar to looksmaxxing, but the focus is on being funny or hilarious, rather than physical self improvement. While there’s nothing wrong with having a laugh and joking around, some parents are noticing their teens are, once again, taking it to the extremes.

Advertisement

One parent shared on Reddit that their 16-year-old son was ‘jestermaxxing’ at home non-stop: “He’ll just interrupt us at dinner with some loud random joke or impression then stare at everyone waiting for a huge reaction … Family time is exhausting because it’s like he’s performing all the time instead of just talking normally.”

They added: “He used to talk about girls like a normal teenager but now he says things like ‘foids [a derogatory term for women] only respect you if you jestermaxx correctly’ which I had to search and it made me feel sick.”

What is frame mogging?

More recently, kids have been talking about frame mogging, but to understand the meaning of that one, we need to first define mogging, which means outperforming or dominating over someone.

Advertisement
Per TikTok creator and teacher Mr Philip Lindsay, “mog comes from the word AMOG which stands for ‘alpha male of the group’, and that word comes from an extremely toxic group of people who prioritise money, looks and misogyny”.

He added frame mogging “comes from a really toxic thought process that is good [for parents] to be aware of”.

When Clavicular was approached to take a photo with a fraternity leader, and the photo was posted online, his followers joked he’d been “frame mogged” as the fraternity leader was bigger built.

So, in short: frame mogging means you’re showing someone up by being more muscular. And in these communities, muscle apparently equals ‘alpha male’.

Much of this stems from incel communities

Advertisement

A lot of these terms stem from incel (involuntary celibate) communities online, made up of men who forge a sense of identity around their perceived inability to form sexual or romantic relationships.

They might say this is because of how they look or because they’re “low status”. Either way, much of their anger is directed at women.

These views and terms have trickled down into mainstream culture through manosphere influencers – who, as HuffPost’s Brittany Wong puts it, “mask their misogyny in self-help, fitness tips and ‘pickup artist’-style dating advice”.

According to Educate Against Hate, boys are drawn to this kind of content because it offers a sense of belonging, simple answers to complex societal problems, and an element of control or empowerment.

Nearly 70% of boys aged 11-14 years old have been exposed to misogynistic content online, per Ofcom, and most primary and secondary school teachers are “extremely concerned” about the influence of the manosphere on children and young people.

Advertisement

While there will be plenty of boys who shun these narratives, over time this content can – and does – subtly shift perceptions.

Talk to your kids about it

If you notice your son using these terms, your best bet is to stay curious and keep the lines of communication open.

Staying non-judgemental and asking open-ended questions, like “What do you like about that content?” or “How did you come across that idea?”, is key.

Advertisement

Fiona Yassin, a family psychotherapist and founder and clinical director of The Wave Clinic, previously told HuffPost UK: “It’s important for parents to name what’s happening. For example, acknowledging that there are online spaces where relationships are framed transactionally – where worth is tied to wealth, appearance, or sexual history.”

Parents can show awareness, and therefore signal understanding, without endorsement, she said. You could say something like: “I understand this is something people are talking about right now.”

Teaching and encouraging critical thinking is important, as is reinforcing your family values.

Check out more tips on speaking to kids about misogyny here.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Robert Jenrick’s Flaw In Migration Attack On Burnham Exposed

Published

on

Robert Jenrick's Flaw In Migration Attack On Burnham Exposed

Robert Jenrick’s attack on Andy Burnham’s pro-migration stance has one rather substantial problem: the Reform MP’s own time in office.

Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, is hoping to be selected as Labour’s candidate in the upcoming Makerfield by-election.

If victorious in the selection process and at the Makerfield ballot box, Burnham is expected to try and oust Keir Starmer from No.10.

But Reform won all eight wards in the constituency during the local election earlier this month – and so the party is already trying to demolish the mayor’s reputation.

Advertisement

In a social media video, Jenrick claimed: “If Burnham wins, a million low skilled migrants will be allowed to stay and get British citizenship in the next few years.

“And he won’t stop the boats. Instead he will put them in bedsits on your street. To pay for it all? He’ll have to hike your taxes.”

If Burnham wins, a million low skilled migrants will be allowed to stay and get British citizenship in the next few years.

And he won’t stop the boats. Instead he will put them in bedsits on your street.

To pay for it all? He’ll have to hike your taxes. pic.twitter.com/DLVrSTRn4M

Advertisement

— Robert Jenrick (@RobertJenrick) May 18, 2026

Burnham has previously criticised the Labour government’s migrants reforms after Shabana Mahmood announced plans to force asylum seekers to wait 20 years to gain permanent residency in Britain instead of five years.

But online critics could not help point out an inconsistency in Jenrick’s line of attack.

Though Reform UK’s Treasury spokesperson now, the Newark MP used to serve as the immigration minister under the Conservatives.

Advertisement

During his tenure – October 2022 until December 2023 – net migration sky-rocketed, peaking at 944,000 in the year ending March 2023.

Jenrick did resign under Rishi Sunak, insisting the Rwanda deportation plan did not go far enough to tackle illegal immigration.

But, social media users have pointed out that Jenrick vowed to procure even more asylum hotels when he first got the job in November – rather undermining his line of attack towards Burnham.

The UK’s net migration was 745,000 when Robert Jenrick was immigration minister. Highest since 1855.

Maybe you should take a seat on this, Robert. https://t.co/zTK2WOkzno

Advertisement

— Has Ahmed (@HasAhmed_) May 18, 2026

Others were simply exasperated at Reform focusing on migration once again…

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Unearthed Video Clip May Impact Andy Burnham Makerfield By Election

Published

on

Unearthed Video Clip May Impact Andy Burnham Makerfield By Election

Andy Burnham is very clear that the Makerfield by-election should not be about Brexit.

Speaking at an event on Monday, the Labour leadership hopeful said: “Brexit has been damaging, but the last thing we need right now is to re-run those arguments.

“I respect the [Brexit] vote and am not suggesting rejoining the EU.”

Unfortunately for the Greater Manchester mayor, his political opponents are determined not to follow his desired script.

Advertisement

On Saturday, Wes Streeting – who could be facing off against Burnham to be the next prime minister within weeks – used his first public comments since quitting the cabinet to pin his colours firmly to the European Union mast.

Leaving the EU had been, he said, a “catastrophic mistake”.

“We need a new special relationship with the EU, because Britain’s future lies with Europe – and one day back in the European Union,” Streeting declared.

This immediately shone a light on Burnham’s own views about Brexit, which he made clear as recently as last year’s Labour conference in Liverpool.

Advertisement

“Long-term, I’m gonna be honest, I’m gonna say it: I want to rejoin,” he told a Guardian event. “I hope in my lifetime I see this country rejoin.”

Helpfully, a video of the mayor’s remarks was uncovered and is now being widely shared on social media.

Burnham is very lucky there isn’t US style TV attack ads available in British politics.

Because this would be game over.
pic.twitter.com/JEO4ockCPy

— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 18, 2026

Advertisement

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has also leapt on Burnham’s comments, vowing to make Brexit a key issue between now and polling day on June 18.

“At a time when millions of voters are demanding control of our borders, he continues to advocate re-joining a European project built around the free movement of 500 million people,” he told the Daily Express.

The controversy has led some senior Labour figures to question whether Burnham – who will be confirmed as the party’s by-election candidate later this week – can see off the Reform challenge.

One told HuffPost UK: “I could get on the Andy bandwagon. But I watched and read Andy’s interviews over the weekend and thought – ah. He sounds exactly like he did in 2015. It was unclear and blustering. It gave me pause for thought.

Advertisement

“He’s going to be ring rusty because he hasn’t had to fight in a decade. He needs to shake it off quickly because in the first few days he’s been given a schooling by both Wes and Reform.”

Another party insider said: “It’s incredible that he went into the first weekend with nothing to say. He was a sitting duck.

“The people around him need to wise up because he’s playing on a different level now. They think that ‘Brand Andy’ will see them through and they need to sharpen up, quickly.”

However, one Labour figure in the north-west of England said the row would have no bearing on the final result, given Burnham’s personal popularity.

Advertisement

“He will walk the seat,” the source said. “Voters around here love him.”

Others in the party question Wes Streeting’s decision to raise the Brexit issue at all, given the deep splits within Labour over the issue.

“Reaction to his rejoin campaign has been pretty dead in the water,” an insider said. “I’ve not seen rejoice. It’s just led to a negative reaction and a tough conversation about what would rejoining actually look like.

“I wonder if some Labour Remainers are actually upset at Wes for going too early before the public and the party are ready for it – causing two days of infighting throughout the party. It shows really poor judgement.”

Advertisement

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

TfL Tube Strikes Cancelled: Reasons And New Dates

Published

on

TfL Tube Strikes Cancelled: Reasons And New Dates

This week’s planned Tube strikes in London have been called off.

Two National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) Tube strikes were expected to take place this week: one from Tuesday, 19 May (midday) until Wednesday, 20 May (midday), and another from Thursday, 21 May (midday) until Friday, 22 May (midday).

But these will no longer happen (nor will those set for June 16 and 18).

Why have the Tube strikes been cancelled?

Advertisement

An RMT spokesperson told HuffPost UK: “At the 11th hour the employer has shifted its position, allowing us to further explore our members concerns around the imposition of new rosters, fatigue and safety issues.”

HuffPost UK has reached out to Transport for London (TfL) but has yet to receive comment.

“The dispute is not over, and more strike action will follow if we fail to make sufficient progress,” RMT added.

Strikes scheduled for June 16 and 18 have also been called off, though the union has set new dates (June 2 and 4) if they remain unhappy with TfL’s response, The Independent reported.

Advertisement

Why were the strikes planned?

Previously, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF), a union body which represents just over half of all Tube drivers, campaigned for a four-day work week.

TfL has since begun optionally trialling the “compressed” work week on the Bakerloo line. Drivers can opt into or out of the system.

But the RMT said that this basically amounted to packing five days’ work into four in a way which might affect the safety of their drivers and passengers. They also said the change “includes reduced flexibility over shift patterns, with the potential for only 24 hours’ notice of what shifts people will be doing”.

Advertisement

And they added previously that “the fact that Transport for London has made no new offer despite months of negotiation” left them “no other choice than to take strike action”.

In response, TfL said at the time: “We have set out proposals to the RMT for a four-day working week which are supported by the other Trade Union representing London Underground drivers.

“This allows us to offer train operators an additional day off, whilst at the same time bringing London Underground in line with the working patterns of other train operating companies, improving reliability and flexibility at no additional cost.

“The changes would be voluntary, there would be no reduction in contractual hours and those who wish to continue a five-day working week pattern would be able to do so.”

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

What Is Allspice? People Left Stunned As They Discover What It’s Really Made From

Published

on

What Is Allspice? People Left Stunned As They Discover What It's Really Made From

I had always (wrongly) assumed “allspice” was called that because it contained a little bit of many spices.

Its festive flavour is reminiscent of cloves, nutmeg, cinnamon, and a little bit of pepper.

In fact, allspice is an unripe berry from a plant known as pimenta diocia.

Advertisement

Also known as Jamaica pepper, myrtle pepper, pimenta, or pimento, allspice is very much one spice, rather than a blend of them. And its processing is pretty involved, too.

How does it get from the plant to our spice racks?

According to the food publication Bon Appetit, the unripe berry looks a bit like a peppercorn grown fruits are about the size of olives.

The tree it comes from is native to Central America, southern Mexico, and the West Indies.

Advertisement

It can be fermented after being picked and is then dried and ground into a powder.

Pastry chef and cookbook author Caroline Schiff told Bon Appetit that she sometimes uses it in place of pumpkin spice, explaining that “I think it adds some more complexity.”

By the way, I can at least console myself that my former understanding of allspice isn’t an uncommon one ― thinking pimento is a spice mix is “a common misconception,” Caroline Schiff shared.

Why does it taste like so many spices?

Advertisement

Spice experts at Curio Spice Co. write that it’s just a chemical coincidence.

The berry’s pungent oils are at their most flavourful just before the berry ripens, when pimento is picked.

Those oils include “eugenol, methyl eugenol, and beta-caryophyllene,” Curio Spice Co. says.

Eugenol is responsible for the clove-like taste, methyl eugenol is common in spices like anise, nutmeg, and mace, and beta-caryophyllene is to blame for pimento’s musky flavour.

Advertisement

It’s also present in hops, cloves, oregano, chard, cinnamon, and rosemary.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Criminalising parents won’t fix youth crime but David Lammy doing it anyway

Published

on

david lammy

david lammy

David Lammy has been doing the rounds on breakfast television discussing his latest plans to reform the way the justice system handles youth offenders. Promising that he will cut the number of children jailed by 25% and ending lifelong criminal records for young people, Lammy instead appears to be passing jail time onto parents instead.

Once again Lammy shows that he is more interested in statistics than in addressing the real issues behind these serious problems in our society. After all, we know the impact that under investment in communities, lack of opportunities and poverty have on the likelihood of antisocial behaviour and youth crime.

Therefore, whilst Lammy’s proposal contains positive changes such as ending lifelong criminal records for under-18s, it does precious little to address this long-neglected issue in British society.

Put simply, it will yet again pass the burden of responsibility onto increasingly overwhelmed and struggling families.

Advertisement

Lammy: where is the investment in youth?

Firstly, it’s important to recognise that the white paper put forward by David Lammy does include some positive measures that could improve the lives of criminalised young people in British society.

For example, alongside reducing the number of young people held in custody while awaiting trial, it will also prevent youth offences from following them into adult life. That shift could make a real difference to future opportunities for those affected, and in turn lead to far better long-term outcomes.

However, the paper still falls short in acknowledging the deeper causes of antisocial behaviour and youth crime. The drivers of youth crime run much deeper, and without serious investment in communities, the same problems will persist – only now with a wider net of criminalisation affecting entire families.

Advertisement

According to the Guardian, Lammy celebrated his reform proposal saying:

Growing up in Tottenham in the 1980s, my biggest fear was ending up in prison. That may sound irrational, but in truth it was the fate of so many young Black boys like me.

You saw it happen slowly at first. People missed school, got into petty trouble, started hanging around with the wrong crowd. No one stepped in to pull them back. For us, going to jail didn’t feel shocking or distant. It felt almost inevitable.

I could have been one of them, but was fortunate to get a scholarship to a state boarding school, which gave me the route out that others never had.

I often think: ‘There but for the grace of God go I.’ Even today, that line between a child who thrives and a child whose life falls apart is often painfully thin.

Advertisement

“Anything for an easy life”

Struggling families often have backgrounds of deep trauma, poverty, and struggle. Many families who are considered to have largely ‘given up’ feel deeply that society has given up on them first.

For example, most families living on the breadline are also surrounded by similarly deprived communities that have seen little to no investment. They’re left to cope alone, with almost no real support to help them get through relentless financial pressure and increasingly busy lives.

So, when children start to struggle, it becomes an overwhelming burden. In some cases, people step back simply because they feel exhausted, unsupported, and stuck looking at what feels like a pretty bleak future. Understanding why so-called ‘anti-social behaviour’ happens is the only way to actually fix it.

Decades of underinvestment have left communities with crumbling infrastructure, barely any green spaces, and no youth services where young people can feel safe or actually socialise.

Advertisement

This class-war move to continually demonise and diminish working class families for the society they are stuck with, which underpays and undervalues the work of ordinary people, runs deep in British society:

Advertisement

People need to feel they have worth in society

Increasingly, young people are criminalised for minor offences, based on the belief that punishing low-level disorder prevents more serious crime. In reality, this has functioned as little more than a sticking-plaster solution for neglected communities, failing to address the structural causes of offending.

These policies have also disproportionately targeted minoritised groups, who are often more likely to live in deprived areas as a result of systemic inequality. Higher rates of criminalisation in such communities do not indicate an inherent predisposition to crime but rather reflect the social and economic conditions imposed upon them.

An establishment that has spent years pushing austerity – and continues to do so under this Labour government – keeps blaming individuals. All the while MPs ignore that this reflects a much bigger, structural problem in the UK.

This X account sums up the failures by this government which is coincidentally is doing precious little to address:

Advertisement

Of particular note, they say:

Pump serious money into exactly those same left-behind places: vocational training centres, youth clubs, actual green factories, rebuild town centres, buses that turn up, green spaces, properly funded schools and social services.

Prevention is better than cure

Nevertheless, David Lammy does take a positive step in this white paper by seeking to reduce the long-term consequences of criminalising young people. However, it remains a measly ‘sticking plaster’ solution. It ignores the much-needed investment in young people, in society as a whole, and in any real prospect of social mobility for young people.

Instead of blaming families for youth crime, the government should improve the conditions those families are forced to live in. Better housing, security and opportunity would do far more to reduce offending. Improving these issues will improve wellbeing, mental health and the future prospects of entire families.

Advertisement

Finally, it has to be said: MPs are gaslighting children when they blame family poverty for behaviour. Instead, they should be facing up to the state policies that drive their lived deprivation in the first place.

That needs calling out – clearly, and by all of us.

Featured image via Getty Images/Dan Kitwood

By Maddison Wheeldon

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Local Green Party questions Westminster council leader’s comments on marches

Published

on

Two part image showing: Top: Nakba 78 march Bottom: Unite the Kingdom march London 16 May 2026 Green Party open letter to council leader

Two part image showing: Top: Nakba 78 march Bottom: Unite the Kingdom march London 16 May 2026 Green Party open letter to council leader

The following is an open letter from the West Central London Green Party to Paul Swaddle, leader of Westminster City Council and Conservative Party councillor for Regent’s Park Ward. It concerns his comments about two marches that took place in London on 16 May.

Dear Cllr Paul Swaddle OBE,

18th May 2026

We, as residents of the City of Westminster and members of the local Green Party, are writing to you with concerns about your comments on the two protests that took place on Saturday the 16th of May.

Advertisement

We are disturbed by the stark contrast in your approach to the ‘Nakba 78’ march and the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ march. In your letter to the Home Secretary, you began by making gestures towards both protests, but then you swiftly transitioned to calling for a moratorium solely on the pro-Palestine marches. You clearly forgot to mention the harm that the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ march caused in September, and the risk that it posed this time round.

Last September, we saw a large range of unacceptable and racist behaviour at the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ protest, with officers severely injured, Islamophobic chants and Elon Musk saying that attendees must “fight back or […] die”. Immigrants and people of colour were made to feel unsafe in the city that they call home. This year, we saw much of the same.

This movement is clearly one that inflames hatred against Muslims and immigrants. On Saturday, we saw activists take to the stage at the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ protest, mocking women who exercise their full right to wear Burqas. We saw people, including police officers, being racially abused, and we heard Tommy Robinson, the organiser of this march, talking about his desire to ‘stop Islam’.

We ask that you retract your statement that the ‘Nakba 78’ march and other similar peaceful marches “send damaging messages that extremist opinions are acceptable”, and that you rescind the labelling of protests in support of Palestine as “hate marches”. The allegation that tens of thousands of Britons of all faiths and none, including many Westminster residents, are either extremists or promoters of extremism is a baseless and inflammatory one.

Advertisement

We condemn your imbalanced approach to these two marches and question your intention when you specifically call for the suspension of protests in support of Palestine and not the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ protests. We are unfortunately left with the conclusion that you operate on a hierarchy of racism, where hatred against Muslims is ignored, and broad accusations of anti-semitism are used in order to crack down on the right to protest.

In our view, the double standards you are operating on and the blind-eye turned to racist behaviour calls into question your suitability as council leader of a borough filled with residents from all different communities.

We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Advertisement

West Central London Green Party

Featured image via Brook Mitchell / Getty Images and Carl Court / Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Adam Driver Responds To Verbally Aggressive Allegations

Published

on

Adam Driver Responds To Verbally Aggressive Allegations

Adam Driver has responded for the first time to Lena Dunham’s claims in her new memoir that he was verbally aggressive towards her when they were working on the hit show Girls.

He added: “I’m saving it all for my book.”

Adam was at the international film festival for the premiere of his new movie, Paper Tiger.

Advertisement

During the news conference to promote the crime drama, Adam was briefly asked about Lena’s portrayal of him in her book, specifically if he has changed his approach to acting since his time on Girls.

His short, sarcastic answer garnered laughs from his co-stars and the audience.

Last month, Lena released her newest memoir, Famesick.

In her book, she spoke candidly about her working relationship with Adam, alongside whom she starred in Girls.

Advertisement

She wrote that Adam had been “short-tempered and verbally aggressive, condescending and physically imposing”, adding that the two haven’t spoken since the show ended.

While filming one of their sex scenes early on in the series, Lena alleged that Adam had “hurled” her “this way and that”.

“Stunned, I couldn’t speak for a moment, unsure of what had happened — had I lost directorial authority, allowed the scene to go off the rails, not given proper instructions? Would I be removed from my command post immediately?” she recalled.

“It wasn’t that I felt violated — and I also wouldn’t know if I had, as there was little in my sexual life that I hadn’t allowed to happen, and for no pay,” Lena added. “But I felt that something intimate, confusing and primal had played out in a scenario I was meant to control.”

Advertisement

Lena also wrote that when she forgot one of her lines, Adam threw a chair at a wall and screamed at her.

“I’d known them only minutes before,” she said. “But when I opened my mouth, all that came out was a stammer – until finally, Adam screamed, ‘FUCKING SAY SOMETHING’ and hurled a chair at the wall next to me. ‘WAKE THE FUCK UP,’ he told me. ‘I’M SICK OF WATCHING YOU JUST STARE’.”

While promoting the memoir, Lena didn’t seem to have any bad feelings toward Adam, telling People she has “a lot of empathy” for the Oscar nominee.

“For better or worse, it was all of our first jobs,” she claimed. “I think Adam went on a very specific ride because he had the ride of the show and then also the ride of becoming a major movie star at the same time.

Advertisement

“So, he was on these two tracks, and he’s a very, very serious work-focused private person. So I have a lot of empathy for that. And again, the goal was never to make Adam seem like he was in any way the outlier of the show, but just to talk about how complex and confusing those first experiences of trying to be a boss were.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Israel attacks Gaza-bound Sumud flotilla in international waters

Published

on

The Global Sumud Flotilla at sea. Israel attacked the boats on 18 May 2026

The Global Sumud Flotilla at sea. Israel attacked the boats on 18 May 2026

Vessels and troops from Israel have begun attacking humanitarian vessels of the Global Sumud Flotilla en route to Gaza.

Israeli ships had been shadowing the fleet overnight before the attacks, then moved in.

Clips show Israeli inflatable attack boats crammed with heavily-armed occupation troops.

Footage streamed from one of the flotilla boats before it went dark show the assault:

Advertisement

Israel accused of ‘illegal acts of piracy’

The boats had set off for Gaza to replace an earlier humanitarian convoy also attacked by Israel in international waters. Participants of that flotilla were abducted and at least some beaten and tortured.

Advertisement

The crews of these convoys are humanitarian volunteers from an array of countries, many of them western. How many times will their governments stand by while Israel commits blatant piracy and crimes against humanity against their citizens?

Featured image via X/ Global Sumud Filosu Türkiye

By Skwawkbox

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Lammy Insists PM Will Not Set Out A Timetable For Departure

Published

on

Lammy Insists PM Will Not Set Out A Timetable For Departure

David Lammy has insisted Keir Starmer is not going set out a timetable for his departure from No.10.

The deputy prime minister insisted Starmer will “fight on” despite mounting criticism of his leadership of the Labour Party and the government.

His remarks come amid reports that the PM was contemplating announcing when he will leave Downing Street as his rivals circle.

More than 90 MPs publicly called for Starmer to step down after the party’s catastrophic performance in the elections in England, Wales and Scotland earlier this month.

Advertisement

Four junior ministers also quit the government, while health secretary Wes Streeting also resigned with a furious attack on the prime minister.

Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham is also running to be the Labour candidate in next month’s Makerfield by-election, and is widely expected to challenge Starmer himself if he wins.

But despite speculation that Starmer is already preparing to make way for a successor, Lammy claimed the prime minister is not going anywhere.

Speaking to Sky News, he said: “Let me be really clear: Keir Starmer remains the most resilient person I know in my life.

Advertisement

“I spoke to him twice yesterday, he has a strength of character, a fighting experience. There will be no timetables. What there is is getting on with the business of government – really crystal clear about that.

“At the moment, there is no contest. What there is is his determination to deliver for the British people, accelerate the pace over the coming months, much to do.”

“There will be no timetable for the PM’s departure.”

He later told BBC Breakfast: “I believe in loyalty, I believe in trust, I believe conviction.

Advertisement

“I stand by [Starmer].”

“He’s got three years. He has my full support,” he added.

Asked if that meant Starmer would fight any leadership campaign, the cabinet minister said: “He’s been crystal clear that he fights on on behalf of the British people, delivering in government, He has my full support.”

Asked if Starmer will be campaigning for Burnham despite their clear rivalry, he said: “All of us in cabinet will be campaigning to ensure there is a Labour win in Makerfield.”

Advertisement

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025