1
Britain
45 readers
32 users here now
founded 3 weeks ago
MODERATORS
2
2
US troops avoiding justice yet another reason to give American military bases the boot
(www.thecanary.co)
US troops are avoiding justice for alleged crimes committed in the UK. And that is one more thing you can add to the long list of reasons US military colonies need to be kicked out of Britain.
The Week reported on 8 July that two US military personnel had escaped proper justice for crimes committed in the UK. This was due to them being court-martialed under US military law, not in British courts.
The outlet reported:
Four women and a 16-year-old girl accused US airman Hannes Marschalek of indecent exposure in 2022, while he was stationed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, the largest US airbase in the UK.
Despite the Royal Air Force (RAF) designation, Lakenheath is a US military base. The Week reported:
Cambridgeshire police initiated the investigation, but the case was turned over to American forces three weeks later.
Marschalek accepted a plea bargain and was dismissed from the air force by a military judge and sentenced to two months in a correctional facility at Lakenheath.
Then in April 2026:
a US military appeal court dismissed the guilty verdict on the grounds that prosecutors had charged him under the wrong offence. He remains on the sex-offender registry in the US, but had he been “prosecuted in the English criminal courts, Marschalek would have faced up to two years in jail”.
And that is not all:
In December 2023, Sarah Steele accused Jacob Wulfson, a US air force captain also based at Lakenheath, of drugging, assaulting and strangling her after meeting via a dating app.
In the end, Wulfson got off lightly. He was:
convicted of strangulation, dismissed from the military and given “six months’ detention”, but was cleared of sexual assault by an “all-male panel” of air force officers.
Steele, who bravely waived her anonymity to speak out, later described how she was asked bizarre questions by the all-male military ‘jury’. The Guardian wrote at the time:
Had his [Wulfson’s] case been heard in the British criminal justice system, legal experts say, Wulfson would probably have been tried for rape. Any sentence would have been determined by a judge.
US troops and their military colonies
The nature of US/UK relations is at the centre of the scandal. As The Week explained:
American forces in the UK are governed by the 1951 Nato Status of Forces Agreement, which was incorporated into British law in the Visiting Forces Act 1952.
Outside of a set of narrow criteria “the British police have jurisdiction”:
However, in practice, the “process is ambiguous”. In the cases involving Marschalek and Wulfson, local British police handed control over to the US. The US military is claiming a “much wider jurisdiction – and British police and prosecutors are allowing them to do it”.
But this is not the first time US personnel have escaped justice for crimes committed in the UK. In 2019, a US spy hit and killed Suffolk teenager Harry Dunn with her car. Anne Sacoolas — who was not identified as a spy until much later — was rapidly whisked out of the UK.
As the Canary reported in 2021:
A Virginia court heard that Sacoolas was “employed by an intelligence agency in the US” at the time of the crash and that her work has been “especially a factor” in her rapid return to the States.
Sacoolas had been working at RAF Croughton. The facility is a major US spy base described by independent researchers at Croughtonwatch as:
part of a global electronic communications, control and surveillance network that projects American military power across Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
Declassified UK reported in February 2026 that there were 24 US military and intelligence bases in the UK. The outlet said:
This doesn’t cover the full scale of the US military presence in the UK, since it is believed that US military personnel are frequently, if not permanently, stationed at still more sites, such as the key Royal Navy bases at Coulport, Devonport and Faslane.
US military bases need to go for many reasons. One of these is the erratic, violent nature of an empire falling apart under president Donald Trump. But beyond the power politics of the US/UK alliance, these facilities are a clear and present danger to the safety of UK citizens.
Featured image via the Canary
By Joe Glenton
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
3
US president Donald Trump has turned up to the NATO conference very angry. And we’re going to assume it is because his cheating national football team got rinsed 4–1 by a very average Belgium side.
In fact, the president took the opportunity to basically slag off every country he could think of. So, like, four…
Iran was high among them. Commenting on the current shaky truce with a country that just kicked his arse in a sit-down chat with NATO’s buffoonish chief Mark Rutte, Trump said:
I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them any more. They’re scum. You know what scum is? They’re scum.
They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people and they’re vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.
Or did he mean Japan:
Trump: "We had 11 missiles shot by the Islamic Republic of Japan" pic.twitter.com/FUOFLVZiKh
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 8, 2026
Who can say?
The UK was next up. Trump still has a proper sad-on about the Brits not letting him use their bases to bomb Iran (even though they uh, did).
He told gathered reporters:
The United Kingdom wouldn’t let us use the island for two weeks, so we had to fly back.
Denmark also got slated. This time Trump went back to claiming Greenland should be part of the US:
Greenland is a big problem for us… very important for the United States, but it’s not important for Denmark.
Trump on Greenland: "That's what hurt my relationship with NATO. Because Greenland doesn't help Denmark. Denmark doesn't spend money to really help Greenland, but it's an important part for the United States. And it's surrounded by China ships and Russian ships. Greenland should… pic.twitter.com/MdvZPdGrEn
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 7, 2026
Donald Trump — Your shit, and you knowwwww you are
Spain, which has taken a hard line on Trump’s warmongering, also got both barrels from the president:
Spain doesn’t agree to anything, and you shouldn’t carry them. I don’t want to do any trade with them, alright?
Donald Trump says Spain are bad people and no-one should visit them or trade with them.
The head of NATO sits there smiling. pic.twitter.com/UbvwRyM7iU
— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) July 8, 2026
International alliance NATO also got a battering. Trump said the organisation is not spending enough:
I’m very upset with NATO, that we pay far, far too much. Billions and billions of dollars, too much, because it’s unfair, because we’re protecting them, so we protect them, but they’re not there for us.
Cool, bro. Anyway, here is Romelu Lukaku celebrating in front of some American dorks (as tweeted by an American dork, look at his American dork name):
Belgium footballer Lukaku waves goodbye, puts his hand to his ear, and appears to yell “f*ck you” to the @USMNT fans.
Classy. pic.twitter.com/yEOjcun76p
— Cole T. Lyle (@ctlyle1) July 7, 2026
And here is Belgium doing Trump’s weird creepy dance as part of that celebration:
Belgium’s team celebrated their victory over the US by mocking Trump’s signature double jerk off dance move. pic.twitter.com/emvy5tK6Xr
— Anonymous (@YourAnonCentral) July 7, 2026
Let’s be honest here, if losing the football makes you that sad you might as well invest some of the billions you pour into funding Israel into grass-roots football. Failing that, why not ring up the thumb-faced weasel that is FIFA boss Gianni Infantino and ask him to change the result of the war you just lost. Loser.
Featured image via the Canary
By Joe Glenton
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
4
4
In a show of commitment to ceasefire, Hamas announces dissolution of its civilian governing body in Gaza
(www.thecanary.co)
The Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as Hamas, has governed the Gaza Strip since 2007, following its takeover from the Palestinian Authority. Over the years, Hamas has established a range of governmental institutions responsible for providing public services, maintaining internal security and coordinating emergency responses during periods of conflict.
Hamas has dissolved its civilian governing body in Gaza
Among these institutions was the Government Emergency Committee. This has played a central role in coordinating humanitarian assistance, restoring essential services, managing civil defence efforts and supporting government ministries during times of crisis. The committee was intended to ensure continuity of governance and aid emergency operations when normal administrative systems were disrupted.
On 6 July, Ismail al-Thawabta, general director of the Government Media Office, held a press conference outside al Aqsa hospital in Deir el-Balah, central Gaza. He announced Hamas has dissolved the Government Emergency Committee, while its head, Mohammed al-Farra, had resigned.
Al-Thawabta said these moves were part of Hamas’ commitment to implement the ceasefire agreement, and hand over power to a new, Palestinian technocratic governing authority. This is known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG).
Sending a message that Hamas is committed to ceasefire deal
The NCAG is a transitional technocratic body formed in January 2026, and appointed by Trump’s Board of Peace. It is made up of Palestinians, who are mainly from the Palestinian Authority (PA), from different professional fields and backgrounds. The chair of the NCAG is Ali Shaath, a Palestinian engineer and former PA official. There are also around 15 commissioners, who are experts in a variety of fields. These include health, education, finance, justice, housing, municipal affairs, communications and social affairs, the economy and religious affairs.
This major move sends an important political message to the US Board of Peace — Hamas is committed to the ceasefire deal, and wants to see it succeed. In a statement, Hamas claims they have now taken “the necessary administrative and legal arrangements to transfer the administrative duties to the NCAG.” These measures, it says, are an important step in implementing the Gaza ceasefire agreement.
Administrative duties on NCAG, but Israel has blocked its entry into Gaza
Hamas stated it would continue administering the Gaza Strip only “until the administration of Gaza is fully transferred to the NCAG.” But it is unclear, as yet, how this will all play out. A governing administration needs to be present on the ground in Gaza. But “Israel” has blocked the Palestinian technocratic committee from entering the Strip. It is currently stuck in Cairo, so cannot undertake its duties.
In its statement, Hamas warned that Israeli occupation actions were intended to create “a reality of administrative vacuum.” It called on mediators and guarantor states to speed up deployment of the NCAG so it could “assume its duties immediately.”
Hamas will still retain its security and policing control in the areas of Gaza still under its control. And staff in local government offices will remain. Hamas has also not relinquished its weapons. So, predictably, the Israeli occupation has dismissed Hamas’s announcement as a “ploy.” This is despite Hamas giving up civilian governance in Gaza, which Trump’s 20 point plan demanded.
The occupation argues that dissolving the Government Emergency Committee was not a genuine transfer of power. And it claims Hamas is not interested in seeing the ceasefire hold. But Hamas has repeatedly talked of its readiness to hand over administration of Gaza.
Israeli occupation has no intention of sticking to the “ceasefire” deal
It is the Israeli occupation which agreed to the “ceasefire” deal in October 2025, but has violated it in every way, multiple times daily. The Board of Peace suggested “Israel” gradually withdraw from the enclave. But, instead, the occupation publicly announced it intends to occupy 70 percent of the Strip.
It also continues its genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza. The entry of humanitarian aid continues to be blocked. Between 11 October 2025 and 6 July 2026, at least 1059 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli occupation forces (IOF).
The implementation of Trump’s “Peace Plan” remains stalled. Millions of Palestinians remain displaced, humanitarian conditions across Gaza continue to be severe, and large-scale reconstruction has yet to begin. Although Hamas’ decision represents the clearest institutional step it has taken toward implementing the governance provisions of the ceasefire agreement, whether that transition can take place depends on the NCAG being allowed to enter Gaza and establish itself on the ground.
Attention will now shift to the Israeli occupation and the international mediators overseeing the ceasefire process. With “Israeli” elections scheduled for October, Netanyahu faces significant pressures that will influence his decision-making. So prospects for fully implementing the agreement remain uncertain. And the political future of Gaza continues to depend on negotiations that have yet to produce tangible changes on the ground.
Featured image via the Canary
By Charlie Jaay
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
5
1
Carol Vorderman facing resounding calls to stand against Farage in Clacton to challenge Reform UK
(www.thecanary.co)
Calls are growing across social media for progressive Carol Vorderman to take on Nigel Farage in the upcoming Clacton by-election. The by-election was sparked after the Reform UK leader quit his seat while facing scrutiny over millions in donations that should have been declared.
The standards commissioner is still investigating him, bankers reportedly raised concerns over possible money laundering, and now Farage has triggered another by-election. Coincidence? We think not.
Whatever the motive, Farage is clearly backing himself to stroll straight back into Westminster.
However, his only competition currently is Count Binface and Laurence Fox, which has led many to see if Vorderman will stand by her comments made to GB News in May’s local elections where, when asked about ever standing against Farage, she said:
I always said no.
I wouldn’t say no now, but I’d be an independent.
So is @carolvorders now going to stand as an Independent Candidate and face @Nigel_Farage in #Clacton?
She told @GMB before the local elections in May "She wouldn't say 'no' now".
Would you vote Carol Vorderman in #Clacton? She also said she supports @andyburnham.
Vote below: pic.twitter.com/Oa0wPShytj
— Joseph Wells (@JosephW56436640) July 7, 2026
Carol Vorderman — Will she or won’t she? that is the question on many a mind
Carol Vorderman has made some pretty powerful interventions to expose the frauds in Reform UK, publicly challenging their far-right politics of hate and division. In the Makerfield by-election, Vorderman was forced to intervene after Reform candidate Robert Kenyon made derogatory sexualised comments about her online. Comments he has yet to apologise for.
Having quite a following online due to her career in the public eye and with many growing up watching her on ‘Countdown’ as the maths expert, she is very much a well-loved and influential public figure. This would make her pretty ideal opposition to Farage who equally is popular with his followers, for far less respectable and commendable reasons to Vorderman.
However, despite many asking about whether she will stand and some mistakenly believing she will, she has yet to announce whether she will or indeed whether she even wants to.
Nevertheless, she has given a public commentary on Farage’s self-serving resignation speech on Instagram calling him a “snake oil salesman” that she “wasted 15-minutes” of her life on:
View this post on Instagram
“Farridge versus Binface” unless he pulls out too
An hour later, she posted about how all political parties have backed out of standing against Farage, leaving him facing satirical Count Binface:
View this post on Instagram
Many are laughing at the fact that Farage isn’t getting anyone of significant political clout standing against him, but this very much leaves a situation where Farage will very easily — and very likely — suggest that the establishment is running scared because, as he would want to see it, it doesn’t stand a chance against him.
This will only pour fuel on the divisive, entitled rhetoric coming from Farage and his circle of self-interested pals. That’s exactly why a strong challenger is needed — someone with a proven track record of standing up for ordinary people rather than protecting the interests of the ultra-rich.
The Greens appear ready to step aside, despite arguably being one of the strongest contenders to take on populist Farage:
Clacton has the chance to show Farage the door.
People Vs the Establishment.
His whole political project is about protecting the wealth and power of the establishment. pic.twitter.com/9QvdB4x0VP
— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) July 7, 2026
Vorderman has piled on the pressure with a YouGov poll shared on Instagram today that shows Farage’s trust problem is hard to ignore. The poll, from the first week of June, found four times as many people viewed him as completely untrustworthy than said they would put their faith in him:
View this post on Instagram
No more political games
People have had enough of political games. Farage’s resignation smacks of exactly that, but so does the decision by other parties to step aside. Instead of taking him on head-first, they’re gambling on Count Binface doing the job for them and leaving Farage red-faced in front of the country.
After all, Fox would only take from Farage’s vote from right-wing members of the public, hurting his chances, which is a welcome sight in this instance. Not that Fox is ever really a welcome sight for many across the country.
However, this raises two issues:
- Don’t the people of Clacton deserve the opportunity to have a committed politician who, in contrast to Farage’s abysmal track record, actually shows up to surgeries and attends votes in the Commons which affect the lives of British people?
- What if Farage wins? Looking back, would parties that stepped aside have handed him a free run at the goal?
One thing is clear: people are sick of politicians treating their futures like bargaining chips — manipulating them, gambling with them or sacrificing them in the pursuit of power, profit and political careers.
This three-man race might be hilarious to look at — but it still carries very real consequences if it goes the wrong way and it will likely cement Farage’s future either way.
Featured image via CurtisBrown
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
6
1
Health groups urge Burnham to scrap “deadly” NHS agreement with Trump to save over 200k lives
(www.thecanary.co)
19 health groups have co-authored a letter sent to new Makerfield MP and likely-PM Andy Burnham to urge him to scrap a terrible agreement made with Trump which could see almost 230k preventable deaths.
The new deal will divert £44.7bn from essential health services to cover the cost of new medicines, which comes as a huge boon for greedy Big Pharma and a foreboding death knell for hundreds of thousands of British citizens.
Academics from the University of York, Liverpool and Christchurch hospital in New Zealand have found that this level of reduction in NHS spending to foot the bill for inflated drug prices could lead to the deaths of 229k by 2036.
This letter comes as one of the first real tests to Burnham’s political resolve and whether he will stick up for the future of the NHS in the face of big bully Trump in the USA pressing for advantageous deals that work for him and his pals.
The UK-US pharma deal with Trump will cost 229,000 lives in England.
The deal is so bad that the editor of the British Medical Journal says it suggests "We’ll kill our poor people to make your rich companies richer”.
Dear @andyburnham, tear up this deal as Prime Minister.… pic.twitter.com/5HF3HTQrsR
— We Own It (@We_OwnIt) July 8, 2026
Big Pharma are ripping us off — Burnham must stop it before people die
This critical intervention comes as we approach the 78th anniversary of the founding of the NHS, which has seen the health service and its staff transform healthcare in the UK and has “saved and transformed countless lives, through providing quality healthcare free at the point of use”.
However, many politicians have sold out to private interests when in office, giving lucrative contracts and deals which have been a significant financial burden on the NHS and has increased its costs through Labour’s PFI deals, which have resulted in the state effectively paying exorbitant rents on its health infrastructure.
Now, Big Pharma is going for the goalposts and Starmer appeared to be more than happy to make it easy for them, signing an agreement to take healthcare away from us to ensure the profits of a small minority in the US — or more likely, living in offshore tax havens.
Many have raised alarm about this for months, like the director of Global Justice Now, Nick Dearden, who has spoken to us numerous times on this huge threat to the lives of Brits:
View this post on Instagram
“Last chance to save the NHS,” say doctors and health groups
The letter, co-signed by Medact, the Doctors’ Association UK and Doctors in Unite amongst others, also refers to Burnham’s previous time in cabinet as Health Secretary in an attempt to hold him to his word, writing:
In 2012, reflecting on your time as Health Secretary, you argued that past Labour governments had gone too far in privatising the NHS and that the coalition were going further and faster down that path.
The current government has kept on that road. But there is now an urgent opportunity to right the wrongs of the past 15 years and more.
Following your decisive victory in Makerfield, you said that this is the Labour Party’s “final chance to change”.
This is also the Labour Party’s final chance to save our NHS.
In order to save the NHS from Trump’s US-first exploitative profiteering efforts, they make three requests to Burnham:
● Commit to rethinking the dangerous US-UK deal on pharmaceuticals, the new PFI arrangements for neighbourhood health centres, job cuts underway in
hospitals across England, increases in the use of private providers in community diagnostics and other areas, and the Palantir FDP contract
● Meet with our coalition of workers and patients before the end of the summer recess to discuss the changes needed to restore the NHS
● Set out a clear timetable to take NHS services and care back into the public sector over the next 7 years
Co-chair of Keep Our NHS Public and a retired consultant paediatrician, Dr Tony O’Sullivan, told the Guardian that “the NHS is already on life support” and that “handing over billions more to US pharmaceutical giants is like trying to put out a fire while pouring petrol on the flames”, adding:
Every year, around 16,000 people die unnecessarily because of delays in emergency care, maternity services continue to fail families, and millions are stuck on waiting lists.
The last thing the NHS needs is to be forced to bankroll bigger profits for multinational drug companies.
View this post on Instagram
Burnham urged to “chart another course” to those who sold off NHS
The letter from the health groups, with support also from the Fire Brigades Union and Disabled People Against the Cuts, finished with a plea to Burnham:
As health campaigning groups and trade unions, we urge you to chart a different course to your predecessors and prioritise investing in our NHS as a public service, so that we can celebrate decades more birthdays yet to come.
With conflicting reports over Burnham’s position on genocide-enabling spy-tech firm Palantir and its growing foothold in our NHS, it’s anyone’s guess which way he’ll jump.
That’s exactly why the pressure can’t let up. Burnham needs to know that every decision he makes comes with a real human cost.
Whether the “King of the North” actually cares is another matter.
Featured image via the Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
7
UK PM Keir Starmer was in Ankara on 7 July for a fraught NATO conference as the alliance announced a new £37bn missile deal. The major militarist project, known as Deep Precision Strike, is meant to protect Europe. The Turkey summit will be the outgoing Starmer’s last NATO conference.
Anadolu Agency reported:
The two-day meeting will focus on implementing defense spending commitments agreed at the 2025 summit, sustaining military support for Ukraine and expanding defense industrial production.
The summit is taking place amid renewed debate over transatlantic burden-sharing and continued uncertainty over the Russia-Ukraine war.
The BBC said the proposed system:
is intended to strike targets nearly 200 miles (300km) away with pinpoint accuracy, possibly extending out to 1,250 miles.
Starmer is likely to face criticism from US President Donald Trump:
for failing to set out a plan for reaching 3.5% of GDP spent on defence by 2035, a target agreed by nearly all Nato members last year.
A major schism between the US and the European NATO members has opened up with Trump and his camp demanding greater spending from allies. This has seen the US threaten to pull some troops, jets and ships out of Europe.
A spokesman for Starmer told reporters on 6 July:
We reject these claims. The UK has always met its Nato spending commitments and remains one of the top defence centres in the alliance.
Starmer will hype the threat to the UK posed by Russia. His foreign secretary Yvette Cooper told journalists on 7 July:
With deep precision strike capability, the UK and our allies will be able to hit high-value military targets and the logistical engines that drive armies, deterring any aggressor and strengthening our mutual security.
At Ankara we are sending a clear message to [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin; Nato is stronger, more European and ready to defend our citizens against the long-term threat posed by him and the Russian state.
The UK agreed to sell fighter jets to Turkey itself in October 2025. As the Canary reported at the time:
The UK is selling 20 Typhoon fighter jets to Turkey. Turkey being an increasingly authoritarian country which the UK itself urged to do better on human rights as recently as May.
Our deal with Türkiye is a win for British workers, a win for our defence industry, and a win for our security. pic.twitter.com/7PpdKCEodo
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) October 27, 2025
The UK and US governments are committed militarists, regardless of which party is in power. The difference is that the US wants to see allies take on more of the economic burden for ‘defending’ Europe. Those allies, meanwhile, are keenly aware that the US, the dominant force in NATO, is much diminished.
In essence, this is an internal argument within the ‘western’ ruling class — between a declining and chaotic US empire and its client states in Europe.
Featured image via Twitter
By Joe Glenton
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
8
Green Party MP Hannah Spencer has called out Nigel Farage for his abysmal parliamentary record:
"He's very rarely in the constituency, he's very rarely in parliament. There was months when he didn't vote. It's called not doing your job!"
Hannah Spencer nails it.
Nigel Farage doesn't even do the job his constituents elected him to do. And then there's the money… pic.twitter.com/hvZrpHUjDw
— Bradford Green Party (@bradfordgreens) July 8, 2026
Hannah Spencer — Where’s Nigel?
Referencing Farage’s ongoing financial scandals, Spencer said:
The money… is one thing, but we also need to talk about the fact he’s an MP that was elected to do one of the most important and vital jobs… deciding the laws of this country. He’s very rarely in the constituency; he’s very rarely in Parliament. There was months where he didn’t vote.
Spencer added:
he doesn’t do in-person surgeries; he doesn’t answer emails. I think that is another bit of trust that has been broken that I wanted someone who was going to work hard for them. Looking at his register of interests, honestly, my finger was sore from scrolling and scrolling and scrolling.
In response to a would-be Reform politician arguing “it’s called success”, Spencer said:
It’s called not doing your job
We’ve reported on Farage not bothering to turn up before. Here’s an update on that as of 8 July:
- There have been 565 votes since the 2024 election.
- Of those, Farage bothered to show up for 173.
- This means his voting record is just 30%, or less than a third of all possible votes.
She’s right, it is called ‘not doing your job’!
Fear and moaning
The BBC interviewed Spencer alongside London mayor hopeful Laila Cunningham. If you watched the clip above, you’ll know this, because you will have heard Cunningham constantly interrupting as Spencer spoke:
Quite possibly the worst edition of BBC Newsnight ever
As Reform UK's Laila Cunningham reveals herself to be an absolute disgrace, shouting and speaking over other guests
What a sad day for the BBC and the country at large pic.twitter.com/tu7owZWnNW
— Farrukh (@implausibleblog) July 7, 2026
Dead-eyed anti-woke campaigner Charlotte Gill was deathly offended by Spencer being annoyed by the imminently annoying Cunningham:
She is so above us all, dahlings! You plebby fascists pic.twitter.com/r1D9e35QAV
— Charlotte Gill (@CharlotteCGill) July 7, 2026
This is the face someone pulls when you’re annoying. Drawing attention to this doesn’t make Spencer look bad; it just reminds everyone how annoying Cunningham his. And Cunningham has really been on a tear these past 24 hours too:
Oh my god…
She’s had an absolute mare here
I genuinely felt for her at one point
Apparently Farage was not ‘politically active’ when CEO of Reform
Maaaaaaaaate.
pic.twitter.com/AmZq3DwlWW— Marina Purkiss (@MarinaPurkiss) July 8, 2026
We reported on the above earlier, noting:
If you don’t want to watch the above, Cunningham argued that Farage was not ‘politically active’ when he was the chairman of Reform in 2024. Her argument was that it’s not a political role to chair and promote a political party (!?).
As we noted above, it doesn’t matter either way, because he still had to declare his relevant interests from the prior 12 months anyway when he became an MP.
Cunningham was one of several Reform politicians embarrassing themselves on Farage’s behalf. Just imagine what the man could achieve if he turned up to Parliament as often as his underlings turned up to defend his financial scandals!
Featured image via the Canary
By Willem Moore
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
9
10
5
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has been urged to “stop treating ‘more nukes in more places’ as the answer to everything” by anti-nuclear campaigners, as Western defence leaders meet at the NATO Summit in Türkiye.
Defence industry top of the agenda
NATO Summit 2026 is taking place in Ankara, Türkiye, on 7 and 8 July, with the formal purpose of reviewing “progress made since the 2025 Summit in The Hague”, and to “set out a roadmap to continue delivering on NATO’s key objectives”.
Key topics on the agenda are defence industry, support for Ukraine and defence investment. NATO allies have agreed to aim to spend 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defence, and some are expected to meet that goal within 2026, according to NATO.
Speaking ahead of the summit on 22 May, NATO secretary general Mark Rutte said:
The task ahead is clear: to turn Allied commitments into concrete results. Increased investment, industrial production and continued support for Ukraine.
All of this contributes to a stronger NATO and greater security for all of us.
On 8 July, the summit issued a statement called The Ankara Summit Declaration. Among other lines on collective responsibility and commitments to investment, the Declaration says:
NATO’s deterrence and defence rest on an appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional, and missile defence capabilities, complemented by space and cyber assets.
The summit comes at a time when Western leaders feel a deepening sense of insecurity due to conflicts directly or indirectly involving NATO interests in Ukraine and the Middle East, and with NATO and its adversaries engaging in a new nuclear arms race.
In February, the UK Labour government was accused of “sitting on the sidelines” of international nuclear weapons risk reduction diplomacy following the expiration of New START (New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty). The treaty limited the number of nuclear weapons the US and Russia could hold.
Dangerous nuclear escalation
During the NATO Summit, International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) advocacy coordinator Florian Eblenkamp spoke to the Canary about how NATO and the UK are involved in dangerous nuclear escalation with Russia.
Eblenkamp said:
Nuclear weapons have become a strategic liability for NATO. The P3 – the US, UK and France – spent $89.5bn on nuclear weapons last year. Russia spent $9.5bn. That’s nearly ten times more, yet NATO governments still say they feel threatened.
If ten times the spending doesn’t buy a genuine sense of security, how much would? Twenty times? Fifty? At what point does anyone admit the money isn’t buying the thing it’s meant to buy?
Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate by design. There’s no way to use them that complies with international humanitarian law’s core principles of distinction and proportionality.
They can’t be deployed “effectively” in any conventional sense, because their only real function is threat, not use. An extraordinarily expensive category of military spending built around never actually being used.
According to Eblenkamp, NATO is moving “the wrong way”, and he raised concerns that the summit will be “about spending targets and industrial output, with the nuclear ‘guarantee’ treated as the one untouchable constant”.
Eblenkamp added:
That’s backwards, you don’t de-escalate by making the nuclear umbrella bigger. A real de-escalation posture means freezing the nuclear-sharing footprint instead of expanding it – the UK joining the Dual Capable Aircraft mission is a step in exactly the wrong direction.
UK must stop hosting US nukes
In April, campaigners told the Canary that the UK Government must stop hosting US nuclear weapons as part of the NATO dual capable aircraft nuclear mission, after President Trump issued a veiled threat to nuke Iran.
Eblenkamp continued:
NATO needs to reduce the alliance’s reliance on nuclear weapons, and reduce the spending on them. Every new basing arrangement is a new target and a new escalation trigger. NATO needs to stop treating “more nukes in more places” as the answer to everything.
He said the UK “absolutely” has a special responsibility to deescalate the nuclear arms race because of its hosting of two nuclear arsenals. He told the Canary:
The UK overtook Russia in 2025 to become the world’s third-largest nuclear spender, and commitments already on the books mean that spending will keep climbing – toward close to 25% of the entire defence budget.
All that for weapons of mass destruction, run under a policy that can’t function independently of the US, and that only stacks up more costs down the line when the RAF acquires its own nuclear-capable F35s to drop US nuclear bombs.
The UK is now the only country on Earth sitting under its own arsenal and a US one simultaneously. Trident patrols out of Faslane; it is assessed that RAF Lakenheath’s US F-35s hit full operating capacity to drop US nuclear weapons last autumn, and nobody in government will say what’s actually in the vaults at the airbase.
Suffolk County Council reportedly has no evacuation plan for a nuclear incident at Lakenheath. That, on its own, should be reason enough to shift the UK’s posture toward less reliance on nuclear weapons, not more.
The fact that, as of September 2025, Suffolk County Council had no evacuation plans in case of an incident involving the US nuclear weapons – which are widely believed to be held at RAF Lakenheath – was revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Canary.
The UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and Ministry of Defence (MOD) were approached for comment.
Other NATO members escalating nuclear arms race
Eblenkamp also took aim at the US, France and other NATO allies for their behaviour around nuclear escalation.
He said:
The US is probably pulling a lot of the strings here, but it’s worth remembering that NATO comprises 32 independent democracies. Each of them has the ability, and frankly the responsibility, to work out for themselves whether threatening to use weapons of mass destruction actually serves their own security.
France is doing something similar from a different angle. President Macron’s ‘forward deterrence’ doctrine opens the door to French nuclear-capable aircraft being based in partner countries and closer nuclear coordination with allies, even though Paris keeps sole control over the button. It’s a second track toward the same outcome: more European states drawn into nuclear arrangements they don’t control.
All this happens while several European governments are trying to reduce their military dependence on the US. But by leaning harder into nuclear weapons – whether American or French – they’re doing the opposite. Nuclear deterrence in Europe still runs through Washington one way or another. You can’t reduce dependence on the US while increasing your reliance on nuclear weapons.
Eblenkamp concluded by highlighting apparent contraventions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which NATO countries are responsible for, saying:
Article II of the NPT says every non-nuclear-weapon state party “undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.” Article VI commits every signatory to negotiate complete disarmament in good faith.
As of today, the US stations nuclear weapons in five non-nuclear states – Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Türkiye – and probably in the UK already or in the near future. In the event of their use in a war, it would be pilots from those countries flying aircraft under their flags dropping the bombs.
NATO’s argument is that this arrangement predates the NPT, so it doesn’t count, and that keeping US nuclear weapons spread out this way is actually what stops them spreading further. Most NPT parties have never accepted that argument, and it’s one of the reasons the treaty has been in deadlock since 2010.
NATO was approached for comment.
Labour remains committed to escalation
With Labour’s commitment to increase defence spending by £15bn under the Defence Investment Plan (DIP) – including a £4.7bn funding black hole left to the next Prime Minister to deal with – it appears likely that the UK will continue to rely on nuclear weapons for its defence and security.
Featured image via the Canary
By Tom Pashby
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
11
The National Security (State Threats) Bill has completed its passage through Parliament and now awaits Royal Assent.
Lords amendments to protect humanitarian workers and journalists from its new offences were accepted, providing some relief, but most criticisms against the Bill still stand.
Sarah Champion MP, from the International Development Committee, welcomed the Government’s decision to introduce express defences for humanitarian organisations but expressed regret that ministers stopped short of a full exemption.
Johnson and Corbyn raised concerns about journalists
Kim Johnson (Labour) and Jeremy Corbyn (Your Party) raised significant concerns about the legislation’s potential impact on journalists in the final debate on amendments.
Johnson warned that under the legislation as drafted, “journalists could still face a prison sentence of 10 to 14 years for working with or even approaching sources in hostile Governments.”
Johnson went further, urging the Government to “consider pausing the legislation so that we can go back to the drawing board.”
Labour’s Dame Angela Eagle rejected Johnson’s remarks, saying that amendments accepted offered enough defences and exemptions for journalists and aid workers:
…the Government’s position remains that the Bill should not criminalise legitimate humanitarian aid work or the important work of journalists and diplomats, and it remains our view that the Bill does not have that effect.
The Government also supported amendments 3 and 5, which were tabled by Lord Anderson. These amendments were based on the advice of Jonathan Hall KC and also had the support of Lord Carlile. They add a reasonable excuse defence in new section 17C of the 2023 Act for obtaining, accepting or agreeing to accept information from a designated body. This means that where a person has a reasonable excuse for receiving information from a designated body, they benefit from a defence. This might include, for example, a journalist conducting an interview or a charity receiving information on the location of landmines. The Government considered the case for exempting humanitarian NGOs from the offences, but we were advised by our operational partners that this would provide a loophole that hostile actors would seek to exploit, which in turn could make the NGOs themselves a target for infiltration.
National Security Bill — Controlling information
NGO CAGE International has also criticised the bill. It said that the bill is about who gets to control information for those looking for information beyond the government’s own version of events.
The National Security (State Threats) Bill is, at its core, a bill about the control of information. It uses the threat of a fourteen year sentence to shape what people are permitted to read, share, and think about, particularly where doing so runs against the government’s own… pic.twitter.com/o3KYliXONa
— CAGE International (@CAGEintl) July 8, 2026
It said:
The National Security (State Threats) Bill is, at its core, a bill about the control of information. It uses the threat of a fourteen-year sentence to shape what people are permitted to read, share, and think about, particularly where doing so runs against the government’s own account of events.
CAGE has warned that the National Security (State Threats) Bill grants the Home Secretary unchecked designation powers with no judicial oversight.
The group says this follows a familiar pattern of mission creep seen with stop and search, surveillance laws, and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) system.
CAGE also points to the inconsistent treatment of groups like Palestine Action as evidence that such unaccountable discretion is open to misuse.
National Security Bill — Shielding Israel
The Bill is primarily targeted at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and that proscription of the IRGC has been “a long-standing goal of the Israel lobby,” according to Tribune.
I wrote this for @tribunemagazine on the draconian National Security (State Threats) Bill being rammed through Parliament this week, and the threat it poses to reporting from conflict zones that doesn’t conform to the government’s approved narratives: https://t.co/LIxxzyELrh
— Tom Blackburn (@malaiseforever) July 2, 2026
The publication points to an April meeting between representatives of the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council with Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, where they made this demand in person.
Tribune also notes that Labour MPs who have spoken in support of the Bill include Luke Akehurst, a former director of We Believe in Israel and arms companies lobbyist.
RT ban by EU a similar move — Murray
Former diplomat and human rights activist Craig Murray described the bill as “terrifying legislation.”
Murray drew a parallel with recent European Union legislation, noting that the European Court of Justice has ruled that reposting anything from banned media organisations is now a criminal offence in the EU.
He said:
If you repost anything at all from Russia Today, for example, if you’re on Twitter and you see a clip of something on Russia Today, someone saying something, you think that’s good, and you repost it, that will be a criminal offence in the European Union.
EU approves law to prosecute anyone who shares video from Russia’s RT…https://t.co/juZaRCrBk9
— SKWAWKBOX (@skwawkbox) July 5, 2026
Even with all these criticisms, the bill will receive Royal Assent later today.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
12
The controversy that followed Egypt’s 3-2 loss to Argentina in the 2026 World Cup Round of 16 did not stop with the objections of the Egyptian coaching staff; it extended to global coaches, refereeing experts, analysts, and even stars from outside football, in a rare scene where referee decisions and VAR technology became the headline of a match described as one of the most controversial in the tournament.
With rising criticism, it seemed that the discussion was no longer about Argentina’s dramatic comeback, but about the consistency of VAR technology, after many felt that refereeing decisions changed the course of the match.
Mourinho and Capello
Portuguese manager José Mourinho was one of the most prominent critical voices, describing what happened as “daylight robbery,” wondering why all clips related to Argentina were subjected to careful review, while Egypt did not receive the same treatment.
Mourinho added that a two-goal lead over Argentina is not enough, because the competition, as he described it, was not just against 11 players, but also against the referee’s whistle and the VAR room, in a comment that sparked widespread interaction on social media.
Italian Fabio Capello also joined the critics, considering that the application of VAR technology lacked consistency, and that some decisions directly affected the outcome of the match, which renewed the controversy over the mechanism of using technology in the tournament.
Refereeing experts: VAR violated tts protocol
The most detailed criticisms came from refereeing experts.
Former Mexican international referee Fernando Guerrero, who worked on the VAR team in the 2022 World Cup final, confirmed that canceling Egypt’s goal was a wrong decision by both the referee and the VAR room.
He explained that the incident does not amount to an infringement that warrants cancellation, and even if it were considered an infringement, it does not fall within the Attacking Possession Phase (APP) cases that allow the video room to intervene, because the Argentine team had enough time and space to recover the ball before scoring the goal.
In turn, former English referee Mark Clattenburg believed that the intervention of VAR technology was not consistent, and that the referee should have applied the same standard in all cases, whether when canceling Egypt’s goal or when claiming a penalty before Argentina’s third goal.
World Cup analysts: No single standard
The position of the most prominent English analysts did not differ. Alan Shearer wrote on “X”: “Either both cases are offenses or neither case is an offense,” referring to the contradiction between canceling Egypt’s goal and not calling a similar foul that preceded Argentina’s decisive goal.
As for Ian Wright, he felt that Egypt has every right to feel aggrieved, and considered that ignoring the review of Argentina’s goal was one of the most difficult decisions to explain.
BBC Sport’s refereeing correspondent Dale Johnson noted that Egypt’s disallowed goal went against the way the tournament matches were handled, confirming that one cannot allow minor contacts throughout the match, and then use one of them to cancel a goal after a video review.
Reuters also reported criticisms from analysts Rob Green, Jamie Carragher, Ian Wright, and Alan Shearer, who unanimously agreed that the application of VAR technology lacked consistency, and that refereeing controversy overshadowed the technical performance of the match.
Kasparov comments on the World Cup scandal
Reactions were not limited to the football family.
Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov attacked the refereeing decisions, considering that canceling Egypt’s goal while counting a similar goal for Argentina made FIFA look like it “favors its stars,” in a comment that gained widespread popularity on social media.
In the same vein, some analysts collected a series of controversial refereeing clips that were seen in Argentina’s matches in the tournament, considering that the Egypt match reopened the discussion about refereeing standards and their consistency in the champion’s matches.
Between coaches’ criticisms, refereeing experts’ analyses, and the objections of media professionals and stars, the Egypt vs. Argentina match moved out of the framework of sports competition to turn into one of the most controversial matches of the 2026 World Cup, amid increasing demands to review the mechanism of using VAR technology and ensure its application with a single standard for all teams.
Featured image via the Canary
By Alaa Shamali
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
13
2
Virgin Media fined record £28m for stopping millions of customers from switching
(morningstaronline.co.uk)
14
15
2
Thousands of charity workers facing threats with human rights causes worst affected
(morningstaronline.co.uk)
16
17
The US has recommenced its bombing of Iran — less than a week after Trump’s ‘justice’ department (DOJ) blocked a court-ordered release of further Epstein files.
Epstein revelations, or Trump’s attempts to avoid them, have been so synchronised with the US-Israel war on Iran that it has been dubbed “Operation Epstein Distraction”. The attacks breach the US’s commitments under its ‘Memorandum of Understanding‘ with Iran.
US protecting the guilty
A US judge had ordered the Trump regime to release files no later than 2 July, along with the identities and email addresses of individuals the DOJ had unlawfully redacted.
Under legislation on the release of files, redactions could only be made to protect victims. However, the DOJ redacted details of countless individuals corresponding with serial child rapist and Israeli spy, Jeffrey Epstein. These included co-conspirators who had reminisced about torturing victims and discussed obtaining new child victims.
Iran, along with US taxpayers and military personnel, are paying the price of protecting wealthy and well-connected paedophiles.
Featured image via the Canary
By Skwawkbox
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
18
19
0
Anti-diversity narrative has apparently become mainstream view with thanks to rise of the far-right
(www.thecanary.co)
A new report written by a former government adviser on extremism has raised huge alarm about the “vanishingly small” window for a new PM to be able to take action to curb the growing division and hate in the UK.
Sara Khan’s analysis reveals a stark image of the current — and growing — lack of harmony in the UK with the report finding that over half of Brits believe that the country is losing its national identity as a result of diversity. Additionally, it apparently found that 40% of people thought that Muslims are not even capable of integration.
According to the Guardian, Khan warned:
The window to grip this is vanishingly small. The incoming prime minister must address these issues before our social contract anxieties shred away our democratic values.
With the report showing that 85% of Muslims want to integrate, it lays bare the gulf between reality and the fearmongering pushed by Farage and the far-right. It also points to a wider problem: a growing distrust in public institutions and government that, in turn, actively fuels suspicion between communities.
That said, the report itself is surprisingly difficult to access, so we’re largely relying on The Guardian’s account of its findings rather than the full facts.
Extremism being influenced by hostile states and bad actors
Firstly, it’s worth noting that the article was co-authored by Dr Matthew Goodwin, who previously worked in the extremism policy unit at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. It would be wrong to ignore the influence of the Tony Blair Institute in this damning and terrifying report, especially given Blair’s criminal involvement in the ‘War on Terror’ which fed anti-Muslim rhetoric across the West.
The fact that it has a department which apparently seeks to monitor extremism feels incredibly tasteless and nefarious when he had a hand in fostering the rising extremism on our shores and mass murder overseas. Coupled with the fact that the report itself is not publicly available, we have been unable to verify the legitimacy of the findings.
Nevertheless, the report made the following findings:
- 55% of people say that Britain’s national identity is vanishing as a result of diversity.
- 31% said they were partial to the pretty bigoted opinion that people of colour would “never be as British” as white people.
- 33% favour remigration, something repeatedly churned out by Farage and the far-right.
- 42% believe that Muslims are not capable of integration, which is not backed up by polling of Muslim people in the UK. This grew to 71% amongst Reform UK voters.
- 80% of Brits believe that it is never okay to use political violence. It then cites 29% of 18-34-year-olds as saying it is acceptable. Interestingly, this is a similar percentage to Reform UK’s vote share in the UK and is hardly surprising given the brutal white riots incited by Nigel Farage.
Division by design
It doesn’t take much to work out where this bogus idea that diversity is behind ordinary people’s struggles comes from. Starmer’s much-criticised ‘island of strangers’ speech helped exacerbate public debate, while billionaire-backed outfits like Reform UK and Restore Britain have relentlessly pushed anti-immigration rhetoric that feeds into the debunked ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy theory.
The establishment and mainstream politics have both used the politically convenient ploy of blaming the ‘other’ to keep their paymasters happy and further their own bad interests. All the while, British people are distracted from the true enemies, allowing the status quo to carry on unchallenged.
The Guardian writes that Khan warned:
The challenge now facing us is more serious, and more deeply rooted, than when I was counter-extremism commissioner. This is not a passing dip in confidence but a structural crisis as a result of a chronic erosion of trust in institutions.
The window to grip this is vanishingly small. The incoming prime minister must address these issues before our social contract anxieties shred away our democratic values.
Where has this fear come from, we wonder
The thread running through it all is clear: fear-driven messaging from Reform UK, Restore Britain and far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson appears to have distorted perceptions, with divisive rhetoric encouraging many people to see people of colour as the source of their problems rather than questioning the wider forces shaping their lives.
Fear for Muslims is also growing significantly, according to the Guardian’s reporting.
For instance, whilst 85% of Muslims say they would indeed want to integrate into British society, 64% of British Muslims feel that white people were “working against Muslims” and another 56% who believe Jewish people were doing the same thing. Another concerning statistic is that 27% apparently believe the Holocaust had been “invented or exaggerated”.
However, this report coincides with an ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and ethnic cleansing achieved through settler-colonial terrorism in the West Bank. Therefore, it is important to note that there is a difference between Zionism and Judaism, and the statistic may have differed if Zionism was offered as opposed to ‘Jewish people’.
For many, the repeated weaponisation of antisemitism to defend Israel’s actions in Gaza has crossed a dangerous line. After all, using the memory of Jewish suffering by invoking the Holocaust as a shield for the deaths of Palestinian civilians undermines the promise of “Never Again” and risks disrespecting the very tragic history that phrase was meant to honour.
Extremism — Distraction tactics with real-life consequences
Similarly, the UK has seen a number of white riots, violence and attempted murders, such as in Southport, Southampton, Dublin and Edinburgh, which arguably provides a plausible explanation for why British Muslims might feel threatened by white people. On the other hand, much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric isn’t even backed by the evidence.
However, MSM has churned this report out and its damning findings about the rise of extremism whilst leaving much up for the reader to interpret. The far-right, of course, have lapped this up as if it’s proof that they were right all along and that Muslims are the problem with a GB News presenter Matthew Goodwin posting on X:
More than half of all British people — 55%— now think diversity is eroding Britain’s identity.
It’s a fully mainstream view. People have had enough.
Source: Britain Under Strain report, reported in The Times today
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) July 8, 2026
When statistics stoke fear rather than inform, MSM is negligent
The fact that The Guardian and others are reporting these statistics with so little transparency is concerning. Figures like these can easily fuel fear and suspicion among both Muslim and white British communities, making it all the more important that their source and methodology are clear.
After hours of searching, I could find no publicly available copy of the report behind these findings, leaving unanswered questions about how the research was conducted and where particular emphasis may have been placed.
This becomes an even greater level of negligence for the MSM as it chooses to provide little context to inform readers and will instead incite and whip up further fear in British society thus increasing divisions and hate.
Iman Atta, director of NGO Tell Mama responsible for monitoring anti-Muslim hate, told the Guardian:
The language of remigration is being used by anti-Muslim and far-right groups to suggest that British Muslim citizens should ultimately be part of the remigration process.
This prejudicial and bigoted perspective goes against the core values of our country of the rule of law and fair play. There are real fractures buffeting a number of communities and their relations towards each other today and we have a turbulent time ahead unless the government gets really serious about the depth of the problems.
The MSM have chosen to churn these statistics out at a particularly divisive time without context and clarity, which is negligent.
But given its coverage of the Zionist genocide, it is hardly surprising.
Featured image via the Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
20
2
Hatred is worsening in public sphere, Polanksi warns in address to councils
(morningstaronline.co.uk)
21
22
23
A historic British market has won a reprieve after fears it would fall into the hands of private equity firms.
After almost 40,000 people signed the ‘Buy Back Brixton’ petition, Green-run Lambeth council has designated Brixton Village Market and its historic Market Row as Assets of Community Value (ACV).
The ACV status does not prohibit a sale long-term, but gives local traders a window of around six months to try and generate a viable bid to take the market into community ownership. So far more than £550,000 has been crowdfunded for a bid.
Brixton Market dates back to the 1870s and was a social and economic hub for the Windrush generation. It hosts more than 100 vendors representing more than 50 countries.
It was purchased in 2018 by global investment firm TPG Angelo Gordon and property management company Hondo Enterprises.
They put it up for sale last year, with reports suggesting it had been pitched to unnamed private equity firms for as much as £50m as part of a plan to boost profits by evicting lower-paying tenants.
Tenants have raised fears that the new plans will lead to gentrification and a loss of cultural identity – or may even see the market scrapped altogether.
Earlier this year, after the original six-month consultation window was scrapped without warning, the Brixton Traders and Community Association launched a ‘Buy Back Brixton’ counter-bid, with support from the Advocacy Academy.
The application to make the market an ACV was lodged by the Stour Trust, a community-led organisation which works to increase the number of Black and minority-owned buildings and assets.
ACVs allow communities to bid on buildings or land if their main use is, or recently was, to further the social wellbeing or interests of the local community. Examples of ACVs include community and children’s centres, allotments, libraries and pubs.
Green party councillor Martin Abrams, leader of Lambeth Council, said: “This is a big step forward for the campaign for community ownership, which aims to safeguard Brixton’s heritage, and I am pleased the council has swiftly taken this important step.”
From Novara Media via This RSS Feed.
24
25
London’s controversial Metropolitan Police force is apparently inundated with a “significant volume” of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Public trust in the Met regularly ranks as very low.
An automated response, seen by the Canary, to one journalist’s FOI request reveals that the Met is unable to handle the number of inquiries it receives. FOI requests are made by the press and public alike.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), public bodies and government organisations are legally bound to transparency access. The FOIA stipulates a 20-day timeframe for bodies to respond within.
The automated response, shared with the Canary by freelance journalist Georgina Garness, reads:
The MPS is currently experiencing a significant volume of Freedom of Information requests and, as a result of competing operational demands, we have unfortunately been unable to respond within the statutory timeframe.
This reply drags up a number of questions, which the Canary has raised with the Met. It suggests that an ever-greater number of individuals and organisations like charities or the press want to know more about the force’s internal processes, data retention, oversight procedures, etc.
Watch: Met violently arresting Jews for protesting sale of stolen Palestinian land
Low trust, low transparency policing
Trust in policing in England is remarkably low overall. Only around 40% of respondents surveyed in 2024 admitted that they actually trust their local police force. The 2023 Casey report offered grave clues as to why.
This number drops sharply among people of colour. The 2024 poll of some 8,000 people found a “race gap” where 42.6% of white Brits trust the police compared with just 32.1% of other ethnic groups.
However, the Met Police scores lowest for public trust. This was particularly stark for women, especially in the wake of Wayne Couzens’ notorious abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard in 2021.
Overall, less than 35% of Londoners trust the Met, which is the UK’s largest policing force. A separate 2024 report concluded that the Met’s reputational challenges are “monumental”.
An academic who led the 2024 study, Steve Pickering of the University of Amsterdam, said:
It looks like policing has lost legitimacy … it has been undermined by a succession of high-profile scandals.
These findings are all supported by the earlier Casey report. Per Guardian reporting at the time, the report found that:
The Metropolitan police is broken and rotten, suffering collapsing public trust and is guilty of institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia.
Casey herself concluded in the report that:
The Met has yet to free itself of institutional racism. Public consent is broken. The Met has become unanchored from the Peelian principle of policing by consent set out when it was established.
Greater Manchester Police found ‘disproportionately’ anti-antifascist
Urgent questions for the Met Police
The Canary raised these points to the Met’s press office, in relation to their automated FOI reply.
(Their initial response was to stall my request for comment and question whether I am actually Canary staff — yes, I am. It seems that the public-policing relationship is remarkably low trust in both directions…)
After explaining my story and findings about low trust in the Met police especially, we asked:
- Whether the volume of FOI requests they have at the moment is a record number. And details.
- Does the Met keep data on its average timeframe is for returning FOIs? If so, what is the average?
- Roughly how long this automatic response regarding FOIs has been scheduled for.
- Why, if the response has been running for a while, do you not hire more staff to address so many FOI requests within the 20-day statutory framework set by the FOI Act 2000? Is transparency and swift accountability not considered a priority? If not, why?
- Are too many Met Police resources – or “operational demands” – being expended on policing peaceful protestors en-masse instead? What proportion of policing resources is spent on protests, comparative to actual crimes or FOIA-related desk work?
- How does the Met Police schedule and prioritise its “competing operational demands” in a way that benefits the public good? Who makes the decision that arresting pensioners, frail or disabled protestors is more socially valuable or urgent than FOIA transparency?
- What do you think it says about the Met Police that so many people are eager to wrestle greater transparency from the force? What more is being done to win public trust in the police?
The Met did not respond to some of the more fundamental questions we raised to them about policing priorities. They also evaded our points about trust among certain communities – women and people of colour – and plucked a figure without source. One Met Police spokesperson told the Canary:
The Met is the UK’s largest police force, serving almost nine million residents and millions of visitors a year. There is a high-demand for our services, including Freedom of Information.
We are committed to improving transparency and building people’s faith in the Met. Public confidence in the force is rising; 74 per cent of Londoners trust the Met.
We always strive to meet statutory FOI deadlines. However, due to the large volume of requests we receive, some cases do exceed the limit.
We responded to over 7,000 FOI requests last year, up from around 5,000 in 2022, and continue to receive a large number of requests. In 2025, we responded to around 70 per cent of FOI requests within the statutory deadline.
We work closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office both regarding our overall performance and our service to those who apply for information.
The Met Police social media team cleverly decided to amplify a Tommy Robinson X post
Featured image via the Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
view more: next ›