NewsExpress

REVEALED: Labour said Scottish nuclear study could be seen as 'waste of money' [ 11-Feb-26 8:39pm ]

Hunterston B Scottish nuclear power station

The UK government has admitted that a study into the suitability of Scottish sites for new nuclear power projects could have been "a waste" of money. The government commissioned Great British Energy-Nuclear (GBE-N), a public body, to carry out the study.

The revelation came after Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) secretary of state Ed Miliband told Scottish journalists in October 2025 that:

given the growing interest in nuclear in Scotland, I'm asking GBE-N to assess Scotland's capability for new nuclear power stations, including at Torness and Hunterston.

This is going to be a very, very big issue in the Scottish election campaign. We are saying yes to new nuclear in Scotland.

Labour hoping to end SNP ban on new nuclear in Scotland

Scotland is due to go to the polls to elect a new Scottish parliament and Scottish government in May 2026. Labour is hoping to wrest back control from the Scottish National Party (SNP).

In an article about the same interview published in October 2025, the Scotsman newspaper reported that a "senior UK government source" had said they were considering submitting planning applications for new nuclear developments at Torness and Hunterston because they expected a Scottish Labour victory at the Holyrood election.

The UK Labour Party and Scottish Labour support nuclear power and nuclear weapons. This position is coming under pressure as the Green Party of England and Wales, which vehemently opposes all nuclear, increasingly challenges Labour in public opinion polls.

Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, the government released documents to the Canary about Miliband's request to GBE-N. These included a Q&A document prepared by DESNZ officials. It revealed that officials knew there would be concerns about new nuclear proposals in Scotland.

No new nuclear can be built in Scotland because planning policy is a devolved matter, and the ruling SNP opposes nuclear power. The rebuttal in the DESNZ Q&A was that there is "cross-party interest in new nuclear" in Scotland.

Energy department officials contradict each other on responsibility for study

The documents released under FOI also revealed that a DESNZ official, whose name was redacted, had sought to reassure GBE-N colleagues that DESNZ was not "behind the briefing" in an email sent on 22 October 2025 at 4:02pm.

That position was contradicted by an email in a separate earlier conversation where, on 21 October 2025 at 6:46pm, John Staples, DESNZ director for new nuclear strategy and fusion energy, said:

our SpAds [special advisors] want SoS [secretary of state] to be able to say the below to Scottish journalists.

'Below' in the email were lines drafted for Miliband which included:

I will ask Great British Energy - Nuclear to begin assessing Scotland's capability for new nuclear power stations.

The internally prepared Q&A included a question which asked:

Isn't this study a waste of money?

The DESNZ answer said:

New nuclear projects can deliver millions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-quality jobs to a region - UK ministers want to understand the potential for new projects right across Great Britain.

The Canary approached the Labour Party for comment, which deferred to DESNZ. DESNZ did not respond to a request for comment.

'Obvious' that study would be 'waste of money' - Scottish CND

A Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) spokesperson told the Canary:

It is obvious that an assessment of the viability of new nuclear sites in Scotland would be a waste of money, since the foremost issue is not the viability of sites but Scottish government policy.

Energy policy is devolved to Holyrood and the Scottish government very sensibly opposes new nuclear plants in Scotland.

There are a whole host of reasons why new nuclear plants in Scotland would be a terrible idea, including the absolutely exorbitant cost of nuclear plant construction, the reliance on destructive and unjust international uranium supply chains, and the enormous and cross-generational burden of decommissioning nuclear plants, which in the case of Dounreay is expected to take hundreds of years.

In particular, the notion that Scotland, which is a net energy exporter and has the potential to become an international renewables powerhouse, should pivot to costly nuclear projects at this stage is somewhat absurd.

Investing the same sums invested in nuclear power plants - scores of billions and climbing for Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C - into the grid, home insulation and the renewables sector across Scotland would be an immeasurably better investment.

For Scottish CND, another concerning element of the renewed push for nuclear power is the deep imbrication [overlapping] of the 'civil' and military nuclear industries, as openly promoted in the 2025 Industrial Strategy.

From this perspective, investment in new nuclear power plants can be seen as defence spending by stealth and a means of shoring up the UK nuclear weapons industry - something which is of no benefit to Scotland and indeed causes major risks and harms in Scottish communities.

New nuclear would be incredibly expensive - Scottish government minister

Cross-party Scottish politicians elected to the Holyrood and Westminster parliaments criticised the commissioning of the study.

Scottish government energy secretary Gillian Martin MSP told the Canary:

The Scottish government does not support the creation of new nuclear reactors in Scotland.

New nuclear would be incredibly expensive and the levy placed on energy bills to pay for nuclear reactors will cost Scottish electricity bill payers £300m over the next decade.

Nuclear reactors also produce a legacy of dangerous radioactive waste. Instead, we are focused on supporting the development of Scotland's immense renewable energy potential - which provides more jobs, is faster to deliver, is safer, and more cost effective than the creation of new nuclear reactors.

Significant growth in renewables is providing key opportunities for our future energy workforce in Scotland, with independent scenarios from Ernst and Young showing that with the right support, Scotland's low carbon and renewable energy sector could support nearly 80,000 jobs by 2050.

SNP criticises 'Westminster obsession with nuclear'

The SNP's Westminster energy spokesperson Graham Leadbitter MP told the Canary:

People in Scotland are already paying a tax for new nuclear power stations in England they neither want nor need, driving up energy bills at a time households are already under serious financial pressures.

Scotland is blessed with an abundance of clean, renewable energy already, enough to power our nation many times over.

So this Westminster obsession with nuclear isn't based on need, or even any desire from people living here who would rather not pay hand over fist for expensive and unnecessary nuclear power.

Instead what they should be focusing on is delivering on their promise to cut energy bills by £300 which have instead, under Labour's rule, risen significantly higher.

People in Scotland are tired of these out-of-touch diktats from Westminster politicians about what should be built here, all while ignoring the genuine concerns of the people who live and work here.

It's no wonder more and more people are concluding that decisions about Scotland should be made in Scotland with the full powers of independence.

'New nuclear would waste time, money and political attention' - Scottish Greens

Scottish Greens net zero spokesperson Patrick Harvie MSP told the Canary:

There is a clear majority against new nuclear power programmes in Scotland.

New nuclear would waste time, money and political attention which should be spent on the real challenges we face on climate and energy policy.

Scotland has made impressive progress in building an energy system based on renewables, which are cheaper, faster to deliver and far safer for people and the environment. There's still plenty of potential for renewables to keep growing.

The UK government shouldn't be wasting money trying to push nuclear projects on Scotland, against the wishes of Scotland's parliament.

If they care about cutting emissions and cutting fuel poverty, they'd be changing electricity price regulation to pass on the low cost of renewable generation to billpayers, which would cut the cost of living and create a powerful incentive to switch away from fossil fuels for heat and transport.

If the UK government won't do that, it should give Scotland the power to do so for ourselves.

Scotland should not have to deal with the distraction of UK Labour's nuclear fantasy, when we need both governments to scale up and speed up in eradicating fuel poverty and in the race to net zero.

Featured image via the Canary

By Tom Pashby

Six in ten young people fear false claims could mislead voters [ 11-Feb-26 8:04pm ]

Findings from a new national survey from Internet Matters and Full Fact highlight a significant challenge to the government's intention to lower the voting age. Extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds risks becoming a missed opportunity to strengthen democratic participation and trust in politics, unless young people get more support to navigate political information online.

The survey quizzed more than 550 young people aged 13-17, and over 800 parents and carers across the UK. It found that young people do not feel well-equipped to assess the political information they are encountering online from a young age.

Key findings - young people want to know more

Children are navigating political content well before voting age. 74% of those aged 13-14 have seen content about news, politics or current affairs online.

Children lack foundational skills for evaluating political information. Only 53% of young people aged 13-17 who have seen political information online are confident in telling whether it's true or false. And just 59% feel confident distinguishing fact from opinion online.

Misinformation and AI are undermining trust in elections. 63% of young people say they're concerned about voters being misled by false or misleading claims during elections. 60% are concerned that AI-generated content may affect the results of a general election. And the same number ignore what politicians and political parties say because they don't know if they can trust them.

Parents think children aren't ready to make informed electoral decisions. 52% of parents think young people are unprepared to vote. Only 49% express confidence in their child's ability to recognise satire.

Young people believe there's a shared responsibility for helping them to identify false or misleading information online. This spans across schools, parents and carers, government, and social media companies.

Recommendations - institutions need to do better

Internet Matters and Full Fact are calling on parliament and government to take four immediate steps to ensure support for newly enfranchised voters to participate confidently in democratic life.

1. Schools need support to strengthen media and digital literacy across the curriculum through access to high-quality resources and comprehensive teacher training. A recent independent review of the curriculum in England highlighted the need to equip young people with the ability to make informed decisions and to help them to understand how opinions, AI-generated content and satire can all influence democratic participation.

2. The government needs to establish a clear, coordinated national approach to media literacy. This should involve supporting young people and adults, including parents and carers. The government should urgently publish its 'vision statement' on media literacy, setting out objectives, priorities and measures of success.

3. The government must commit to sustained funding to deliver media literacy education outside schools. This should include the Electoral Commission delivering evidence-based public information campaigns on issues such as misinformation.

4. Parliament must require social media companies to support users' media literacy on platforms, including labelling AI-generated content, design features that support critical evaluation (e.g. read-before-you-share prompts and source information labels), and user controls for recommender systems.

Rachel Huggins, CEO of Internet Matters, said:

Young people are growing up in a digital world where much of their political information comes from online platforms, where it can be difficult to judge what is a fact and, with the rise of AI-generated content, even what is real.#

Lowering the voting age will only succeed if young people - and the parents and carers supporting them - are given the tools to navigate and engage successfully within that world, rather than attempting to shut them out of it.

Mark Frankel, Head of Public Affairs at Full Fact, said:

By the age of 13, many young people are engaging with political information. Rather than banning them from social media, we need to teach children the skills to navigate and assess these sources of political information.

MPs debating the Elections Bill need to send a clear message that future elections will be protected from disinformation and AI, to keep young people engaged with politics.

Emily Darlington MP, Member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee said:

We have seen from the Committee's inquiry into the 2024 summer riots just how damaging misinformation can be for our democracy. This research shows that a majority of kids agree, and that they're worried about how safe our democracy is in this new age of AI and mis/disinformation.

If the next generation of voters doesn't have confidence in our democracy, we have a responsibility to act before it's too late. Online platforms must be participants in the fight to protect trust in our democratic processes, rather than undermine it.

Kirsty Blackman MP, Co-Chair of the APPG on Political and Media Literacy, said:

These findings underline what members of the APPG have long argued: extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds must come with a whole-of-society commitment to equipping young people to navigate the digital information environment they already inhabit.

When 6 in 10 young people are concerned about the potential for misinformation and AI-generated content affecting elections, protecting our democracy means embedding political and media literacy education in the National Curriculum, supporting teachers to deliver it, and holding tech platforms to account through media literacy by design.

Stella, a student aged 14, told Internet Matters:

I think it's important for children and young people to be taught how to navigate the information they see online from a young age, so they can feel confident forming their own views about politics and voting. The earlier this support starts, the better prepared young people will be to take part.

Featured image via the Canary

Notorious Maximus is advising employers that staff with ME need to exercise more [ 11-Feb-26 7:45pm ]

Infamous outsourcing company Maximus is telling employers their staff living with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) need to exercise more to "boost energy" and "get more done".

Amid a shocking and, likely, wilful misrepresentation of the devastating chronic systemic neuroimmune disease, the notorious privatisation giant is promoting dangerous treatment "strategies", namely, Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), that a leading UK health body roundly discredited in 2021.

Maximus peddling ME advice to employers

Maximus, with its decades of hoovering up government contracts to profit from making chronically ill and disabled people's lives hell, appears to have appointed itself the oracle of:

Creating inclusive workplaces for people with disabilities.

Setting aside the first red flag that it's clearly not operating from the Social Model of Disability and using community-preferred 'disabled people', its history of benefit deaths and harm hardly screams authority on inclusivity. Nevertheless, the 'Kill Yourself' scandal benefit assessor has a whole host of advice for employers with disabled staff — because of course it does.

Specifically, it's providing this in the form of free 'toolkits' on particular health conditions and disabilities.

One of these offers information to employers on ME. The first issue to note here is that, instead of ME, it heads its webpage:

Chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and multiple sclerosis toolkit

So to start with, Maximus is ignoring the community-preferred term. Not only that, but it's also conflating 'chronic fatigue'; the symptom, with 'chronic fatigue syndrome'; the condition.

And naturally, with that strong start, it's all only further downhill from there.

Exercise yourself better

A sparsely-informative three-page spread tells employers that ME is a:

long-term chronic fluctuating illness affects many parts of the body, including the nervous and immune systems.

It then states that:

The most common symptoms are severe fatigue or exhaustion, problems with memory, concentration and muscle pain.

Predictably, the toolkit fails to even mention the hallmark of ME — post-exertional malaise (ME). This involves a disproportionate worsening of other symptoms after even minimal physical, social, mental, or emotional exertion. And it's the key reason that Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) is dangerous for people living with ME.

So with this omission, it opens the door to the guide promoting GET and GET-type rebrands ('activity management'). This is despite the fact that in 2021, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) removed GET as a treatment recommendation in the treatment of ME.

There's a brief mention of pacing. However, any good work it does highlighting this, it quickly undoes with talk of increasing activity.

A separate page on its website gives further alarming advice to employers around staff with ME. In an A-Z of Disabilities, Maximus tells employers to give "onsite exercise classes" and "discounts on gym memberships".

This is because, according to the self-appointed ME expert (emphasis ours):

Symptoms may be worsened by over-exercising or too much inactivity

Think yourself better

Of course, no gaslighting guide to cover for employers unprepared to make genuine accommodations for people with ME would be complete without an undercurrent of psychologisation.

Maximus was only too happy to hawk this psychosomatic intimation. In the toolkit, it lists CBT amid its "treatment strategies". NICE downgraded this 'think yourself better' garbage for people living with ME in 2021 as well. For years, psychologising clinicians have used it as a stick to beat ME patients with. The unsubtle implication is always that it's all in their heads.

The A-Z is no less minimising. It tells employers to "reduce stress by promoting mindfulness" and signposts to Maximus's own Access to Work Mental Health Support Service.

Parts of the guidance point to "large or unhealthy meals" and "lack of relaxation" as exacerbating symptoms. People with ME will likely have specific dietary requirements due to symptoms and co-occurring conditions. However, the suggestion that it's their unhealthy lifestyle that's making their ME worse is insulting. The aim — and effect — is to shift responsibility away from employers and the medical profession who are failing ME patients everywhere.

A brand new toolkit — entirely out-of-date

If all this weren't bad enough, another toolkit gives practically the same advice to employers over long Covid.

Maximus might be forgiven (though still wrong) for hosting an error-riddled toolkit like this in 2021. But over four years after NICE published its updated guidelines, it's indefensible that the outsourcing giant is STILL peddling these harmful stereotypes and treatments for people living with ME.

According to source page information, the A-Z webpage is from 29 September 2022. In other words, it published this nearly a year after the NICE guideline changes. And Maximus even updated this again in January 2025.

To make matters worse, in the toolkit's case, source information dates the toolkit to 2 December 2025. Maximus seems to have even modified the page in early January 2026. So, this is essentially brand new guidance it's promoting to employers.

Not the first time Maximus has done this

This isn't the first time Maximus has produced flawed information around ME either. The Canary previously exposed how alongside other outsourcing giants like Serco and Capita, it compiled problematic ME training materials for staff administering Work Capability Assessments (WCA).

It's another glaring example of why profit-driven private companies should be nowhere near services supporting chronically ill and disabled people inside or outside of work. In this instance, the information is out-of-date and actively dangerous.

What's patently clear is that it should not be posing as any sort of expert in ME or long Covid. But Maximus's fallacious advice is very convenient for corporate capitalists and a government hell-bent on coercing chronically ill and disabled people into low-waged, inaccessible, and inappropriate work.

And at the end of the day, misinformation and manipulations like this are nothing you wouldn't expect from a money-grubbing megacorporation like Maximus.

Featured image provided via the author

By Hannah Sharland

800 arms firms lobby chancellor Rachel Reeves for their own special war bank [ 11-Feb-26 6:40pm ]

800 arms firms have sent an open letter to chancellor Rachel Reeves demanding she open a special 'war' bank just for them. These massive scroungers want guaranteed flows of state cash so they can line their pockets from global instability. Reeves doesn't appear to have answered them yet. But Keir Starmer has pledged to build the UK economy around war — despite evidence suggesting defence spending does little for growth.

Politico reported:

More than 800 British defense companies have urged Chancellor Rachel Reeves to launch a global rearmament bank to guarantee lending to the sector as the U.K. government attempts to ramp up military spending

The letter was coordinated by Make UK Defence, a trade body for arms firms. They want the UK signed up to a Defence, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB). A former senior NATO official is leading the charge:

The DSRB was conceived by former head of NATO innovation, Rob Murray, with the aim of creating a multilateral AAA-rated bank providing loans to allied governments, potentially allowing the U.K. to borrow directly from the institution at a lower cost.

The British government ruled out such a measure in September 2025. But now they are under pressure from the arms firms looking to guarantee a few more third homes and yachts for shareholders.

Accelerate defence spending

Make UK Defence chief Andrew Kinniburgh wrote in the letter seen by Politico:

It is therefore essential that defence spending is accelerated in a way that translates into real industrial capacity and military capability. The DSRB could be a significant pillar in achieving this, alongside our NATO and non-NATO allies.

Politico explained that arms firms are sad they don't have all of the money:

A multinational rearmament bank would also provide credit guarantees to commercial banks, allowing them to lend at a greater scale to defense businesses, which report struggles in accessing finance, particularly among small and medium-sized firms.

Please, won't somebody think of the arms firms?

On a side-note, if you look at Make UK Defence's website you'll find its backers include everything from establishment think-tanks like the Royal United Service Institute (RUSI) to arms firms like Lockheed, Boeing and Anduril. You'll also see various military charities like the RAF Benevolent Fund and SSAFA.

Perverse. But at least they're committed to Net Zero. Great work, team. All is forgiven…

A spokesperson for the UK treasury said:

We are committed to deepening cooperation with our allies to deter and disrupt threats — including strengthening the UK's unshakeable commitment to NATO.

But Labour's economic plans have holes in them so big you could drive an aircraft carrier through them.

Military Keynesianism

The Labour government has decided to build an economy around Military Keynesianism. Their logic is off. Economist Michael Burke has said:

There is an entire body of thought devoted to the idea of promoting military spending as an economic benefit dubbed by its supporters as 'military Keynesianism'.

John Maynard Keynes was a socialist-ish economist whose work on government spending informed many positive state programs in the 20th century. But what Starmer has proposed is a "vulgarisation of Keynes' work":

supporters suggest any type of government spending is beneficial to the economy, and given that military spending enhances the power and prestige of the country, then military spending should be prioritised.

It's easy to get bogged down in complex economics here. But here is Burke's key point:

military spending has one of the lowest 'employment multipliers' of all economic categories.

He added:

It ranks 70th in terms of the employment it generates, out of 100.

So what sort of economic activity actually is good? Well:

Health is rated number 1. Everything from agriculture to energy to food manufacture, chemicals, iron and steel, to computers, construction, and a host of others in between all have greater 'employment multipliers' than military spending.

Labour obsession with handing out free money to arms firms seems more ideological than useful. That said, they have stated they aren't going to start up a war bank. But Starmer's government is weak and getting weaker. They're still inured to NATO, the US and the demands of global capital. Time will tell if they hold out in the face of pressure from Big Death.

Featured image via the Canary

More planes fly from RAF bases to join Trump's armada [ 11-Feb-26 6:21pm ]

Lakenheath Alliance for Peace has updated us with details of more flights from supposed RAF bases in the UK.

On 9 February six F-35As, from 134th Fighter Wing based in Vermont in the USA, landed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk. They were escorted by three KC-135R air-departed to-air refuelling planes that landed at 'RAF' Mildenhall.

This is on top of 12 F-15Es, from the 494 Fighter Squadron based at Lakenheath, which departed for the Middle East / West Asia in January. Earlier in that month 12 F-15Es from Seymour Johnson air base in the US passed through Lakenheath on their way from the US to West Asia.

As well as fighter jets at least 14 C-17 transport planes left RAF Lakenheath for West Asia.

RAF also on the move

The UK has also been bolstering its presence in the region. On 6 February six F-35Bs from RAF Marham in Norfolk left for RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. They'll join the Typhoons already in Cyprus carrying out missions over Iraq and Syria. Typhoons from 12 Squadron also deployed to Qatar in January.

Several states including Saudi Arabia, UAE and even Israel have expressed concerns about the possible attack on Iran. And they've denied over-flight for forces taking part in any potential attack on Iran.

Anti-war campaigners have raised concerns that the UK is falling into another military conflict and increasing military tensions. They are holding a demonstration at RAF Marham on 28 February. And there's an International Peace Camp at RAF Lakenheath from 1-6 April.

Peter Lux from Lakenheath Alliance for Peace said:

Although we are obviously against military conflict this is an issue that should concern everyone. No matter how noble you think your cause is, no matter how right you feel you are, once you drop the first bomb and unleash the horrors of war you do not know what the consequences will be.

Yet again, after the debacle of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria which cost hundreds of UK lives and hundreds of thousands of others we are blindly walking into another conflict with little discussion or even awareness of what is being prepared.

If it all goes wrong - for example Israel suffers huge losses - it must be remembered that they have nuclear weapons which would unleash untold horrors.

Featured image via YouTube / Military Aviation Channel

Chappell Roan leads by example after Epstein connection discovered [ 11-Feb-26 3:56pm ]

In a move many public figures would do well to learn from, musician Chappell Roan has cut ties with her talent agency after flirty emails unearthed between its founder Casey Wasserman and Jeffrey Epstein's partner-in-crime Ghislaine Maxwell.

UK PM Keir Starmer backed Peter Mandelson despite his ties to a paedophile. Roan, instead, ended her working relationship and demands better from those working with her. Starmer and others would do well to take heed of how it should be done.

Chappell Roan announces she's leaving Wasserman agency amid founder-CEO's ties to the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein:

"This decision reflects my belief that meaningful change in our industry requires accountability and leadership that earns trust." pic.twitter.com/nmYujTA3by

— Buzzing Pop (@BuzzingPop) February 10, 2026

Chappell Roan: 'accountability and leadership that earns trust.'

According to the Guardian, flirtatious emails were revealed between Wasserman and Ghislaine Maxwell which preceded Roan's public announcement. In as a shining example of how a principled person responds to apparent ties with a network linked to child abuse, Roan's full statement reads:

As of today, I am no longer represented by Wasserman, the talent agency led by Casey Wasserman.

I hold my teams to the highest standards and have a duty to protect them as well. No artist, agent or employee should ever be expected to defend or overlook actions that conflict so deeply with our own moral values.

I have deep respect and appreciation for the agents and staff who work tirelessly for their artists and I refuse to passively stand by. Artists deserve representation that aligns with their values and supports their safety and dignity. This decision reflects my belief that meaningful change in our industry requires accountability and leadership that earns trust.

Roan's refusal to "overlook actions that conflict so deeply" with her team's values highlights the real problem with Starmer - and men like him. He appointed "Petie" Mandelson as UK Ambassador to the US despite knowing about his friendly ties to a convicted paedophile.

Our own Skwawkbox wrote last week:

Keir Starmer has admitted knowing all about his disgraced senior adviser Peter Mandelson's continuing close ties to serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein.

Before he appointed him to be ambassador to the US.

It was already a matter of record that Starmer knew when he told MPs last September that he had full confidence in Mandelson. Mandelson was removed as ambassador shortly afterward — but kept on the government payroll. That month's Epstein file release underscored Mandelson's infatuation with Epstein, but their ties had been on record long before.

The contrast couldn't be clearer: some powerful people follow principle, while many powerful men and their cronies just ignore it.

Bro's stick together

The Canary's Alice Charles also wrote about how corporate media is ignoring the blatant "broligarchy" revealed in the Epstein files. Charles wrote:

While being mentioned in the Epstein Files is not an indication of wrongdoing, it certainly begs the question of why anyone would go to an Epstein function more than once. What were they getting in return? Was a relationship with Epstein really worth risking everything? For example, if Google co-founder Sergey Brin has used his own search engine, he would have found Epstein's widely reported conviction for child sex offences.

The files story is one of systemic failure and draws attention to the inability of law enforcement agencies around the world to deal with criminals when they are wealthy and influential. But Epstein was no "kingpin", merely a cog in a global wheel of male patriarchal supremacy - one that must be dismantled finally and completely.

Roan has never been one to shy away from speaking truth to power. Speaking up for Palestine, she has been known to call out the "engine of celebrity endorsement" that US political leaders rely on:

Chappell Roan is donating proceeds to Palestine and told the Whitehouse to fuck off when they tried to pink-wash her

She's extremely political and this quote is cherry picked out of context

She's criticizing the engine of celebrity endorsement and asking us to engage directly https://t.co/vCDtLnE9fo pic.twitter.com/RZOMUfYm3A

— Ben Silver

Advance UK want to 're-colonise' the classroom [ 11-Feb-26 3:36pm ]

Ben Habib, founder of Advance UK (an even more openly racist party than Reform UK) has announced that he aspires to 're-colonise' the curriculum:

BREAKING RIGHT NOW: Ben Habib has just announced Advance UK will "re-colonise the curriculum" in the party's first major policy event.
He vows to make schools hold Christian assemblies with the national anthem and teach how Christian thought moulded the UK.
Do you agree? pic.twitter.com/LL9B5e3bV1

— Dan Wootton (@danwootton) February 7, 2026

The party only officially launched in June 2025 and has already made some audacious statements regarding policy. Habib, claims to be driven by Christ, and wants Christian thought to be "moulded" into the UK and 'western civilisation'.

Advance UK align with Christianity

Advance UK's alignment with Christianity is no accident. In times of where there is a huge crisis of meaning, religion provides stability. It is much easier to justify power through the lens of divinity, than it is to take accountability over our humanity. Habib and his cohort know this well.

Their patriotic bravado is a purposeful choice. In order to have their warped sense of 'home' and 'nation' there must be an 'outsider' and 'other.'

We don't need to recolonise anything — least of all the curriculum. The British empire fucked so much shit up and its legacy still lives on today. The classroom is not a place where democracy is permitted. As Akala reminds us, "The curriculum is a political choice". No matter how we try to pretend, the UK will never escape its shadow. Colonialism was and continues to be a travesty to humankind. Britain robbed countries of their wealth, health, and culture. It systematically ranked humans and portrayed neoliberal capitalism as some kind of 'god.'

Colonial nostalgia

Advance UK's attempt at colonial nostalgia is entwined with the same settler colonial ideology which not only drove the British empire but also powers the anti-immigrant rhetoric spewing forth from major political parties. We do not need to continue branding Britain as the pinnacle of civility and everyone else its subject. We need a curriculum that honestly confronts power and encourages diversity.

Decolonising the curriculum does not mean erasing Britain or replacing one orthodoxy with another. It means examining how knowledge was shaped by empire. It means recognising whose voices were centred and whose were marginalised. It means teaching Britain's history in full — including the violence, resistance and global consequences — rather than presenting a sanitised national myth.

A decolonised curriculum will not weaken Britain. It would increase its maturity and thus forth credibility. As Priyamvada Gopal, a professor of Postcolonial studies at the University of Cambridge, argues:

Decolonising the curriculum is about expanding the scope of knowledge not narrowing it.

Expansion is not an attack on Britain. It is an investment in intellectual maturity.

Featured image via X

By Vannessa Viljoen

Autistic children's school difficulties aren't reason to cut support [ 11-Feb-26 3:36pm ]

Austere classroom illustrating autistic children's school difficulties

UK-based autism charity Ambitious About Autism has released results of a survey which show that one in six autistic pupils have not been to school since the beginning of this academic year. They polled nearly one thousand young people and their families, finding a variety of reasons for their absence.

One thing is crystal clear: the consistent factor amongst the reasons for absence is the hostility caused by the school system and the government failing disabled students. 62% cited mental health issues, and a fifth said their school was not suitable.

For autistic people who have made it through to the other side of education, these statistics are entirely unsurprising. Schools are hostile environments in more ways than one, based in both the sensory and the social. Fluorescent lighting, loud echoing hallways, and intense dining room smells are just a few of the offensive sensory inputs that all combine with the heavy load of masking needed in order to try to fit in, navigate harsh rules, and attempt to focus on your work.

Autistic children are not your scapegoat

In the survey, 45% of the respondents said they felt blamed by the government for the absences. This should be validated, seen through the endless attacks on autistic people and their families to make the public see them as the enemy of the working class for needing more funding and support.

Neoliberalism sees these children as inconvenient. Not only do they cost more money, they cannot fit into the cookie-cutter system meant to spit out adults who are ready to assimilate straight into a workplace. This is where ableism is shown to be deeply intertwined with capitalism, where anyone who does not fit the mould is seen as a problem.

You may have heard autistic people referred to as 'canaries in the coal mine' before. This is the idea that we are the first to see threats or distress, which should be seen as a warning of something more systemic that will come to affect everyone. In the neoliberal education system, autistic children fit this: these environments are not truly built for anyone, and the higher levels of distress faced are only indicative of the fact that all children are being treated in a way that is problematic and misaligned with their needs.

This is a crucial moment for SEND support

This survey comes at a point in time where the government is planning to reform the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system. This proposes that it will improve outcomes for disabled children, but those more cynical can argue it is a money mission.

The reforms are apparently aiming to address delays and poor outcomes - and, of course, 'unsustainable costs'. At this stage, Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) are apparently not being scrapped, but it appears that schools will have their own responsibilities around assessment. This is significantly concerning due to lack of expertise and the possible lack of accountability.

It should not matter that more children than ever fall into the SEND category or need EHCPs. Every single individual deserves access to the support they need, whether that is in a specialist setting or in mainstream, where 70% of (diagnosed) autistic children are educated. We need more specialist settings where autistic children can thrive in environments that are built for them, with the right transport, properly trained staff, and supported transitions. 20% of those surveyed were out of school due to unsuitable school placement.

If schools were changed at a fundamental level, given an entirely different culture, accommodating many autistic young people would still be necessary but could become an easier task. Softer sensory environments, more regulated nervous systems and social support help every child regardless of their need. We will always need individual accommodations, and many autistic children will still need specialist support, but the current system sets everyone up for failure.

This is a critical moment in how we see, hear and support autistic children and their families. They deserve holistic care, in the right environment, and an inclusive system. The focus remaining on money is not the answer.

We have to take autistic children and families seriously

While Ambitious About Autism is using these statistics to raise awareness of why non-attendance occurs for autistic young people, mass media has latched onto them to fuel their debates on the lives of disabled people. Many of the discussions are intentionally inflammatory and lead to further stigma for autistic children and their families, who are simply trying to survive a system that is built to work against them.

Terms like 'school refusal' and 'non-compliance' are thrown around constantly. The implication is heavily that this is a choice, that young people are simply acting up or their parents should just be parenting better. That is not the reality faced by thousands of families. They have been abandoned by the system and are having to fight every day, often losing their jobs or income as collateral.

Mental health crisis, autistic burnout, and exclusions are almost normalised when it comes to autistic children and young people. It should not be seen as acceptable that huge swathes of children are being failed.

There is a deep irony at how many people on the right use 'we need to look after our own' to justify their bigotry, until it is disabled children and parents who are drowning in a system that refuses to care.

This survey should prove the gaps we know exist, not justify the perpetuation of horrific narratives which target such a vulnerable group. Autistic children and their families are not asking for too much: simply advocating for something that is their right.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charli Clement

Labour accused of 'sitting on sidelines' as US/Russia nuclear treaty expires [ 11-Feb-26 3:22pm ]

Launch of Minuteman III ICBM Nuclear arms treaty

The UK government stands accused of "sitting on the sidelines" of international nuclear weapons risk reduction diplomacy. This follows the expiration of New START (New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty). It limited the number of nuclear weapons the US and Russia could hold.

US president Barack Obama and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev signed the agreement in 2010 and it came into force in 2011.

According to the Chatham House think tank, which focuses on international affairs:

The treaty caps the US and Russia each at 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic launchers, and up to 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers.

It also established detailed transparency and verification mechanisms, including data exchanges, notifications and on-site inspections.

Russia had expressed interest in a voluntary one year extension of the treaty after its scheduled expiration on 5 February 2026, which US president Donald Trump said on 5 October 2025 sounded "like a good idea". But in the end, no legally binding nor voluntary extension was agreed.

UK government 'regularly raises' nuclear risk reduction with US and Russia

Later in October 2025, Liberal Democrat MP David Chadwick and Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty separately asked the UK government what it was doing to encourage extending the term of the treaty.

In response, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office minister of state Stephen Doughty said:

The New START Treaty is a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russian Federation; any replacement treaty is a matter for the US and Russia.

The UK regularly raises issues related to strategic risk reduction, including arms control with the USA and Russia through the expert-level P5 process.

According to the European Leadership Network, the P5 process:

brings together the five nuclear weapon states (NWS)—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—recognised by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in a dedicated forum to discuss their unique responsibilities under the Treaty.

Doughty continued:

Genuine and verifiable strategic arms control among the largest Nuclear Weapons States can be a positive step for global security.

However, following Russia's decision to suspend participation in New START verification measures in 2023, future approaches need to be based on concrete, and verifiable actions.

On 2 February 2026, Labour MP John Grady asked prime minister Keir Starmer if he had discussed nuclear weapons risks with his Chinese counterpart, during a House of Commons debate about Starmer's recent visit to China:

China is a significant and growing nuclear power, with more than 600 warheads, and this week the US-Russia New START treaty comes to an end.

Can the Prime Minister tell me if the UK is engaging with China at the highest levels to prevent the risk of nuclear weapons and combat nuclear proliferation?

Starmer responded:

I assure my hon. Friend that our discussions with China did include how we derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons.

Government accused of 'sitting on the sidelines' of nuclear weapons diplomacy

Reacting to the treaty's expiration, CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) general secretary Sophie Bolt said:

The collapse of New START without a replacement represents a serious and dangerous step backwards for global arms control.

To get this back on track, we need global public pressure to push for interim measures that could be agreed between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin today!

This could involve a one-year moratorium on exceeding New START caps, the resumption of inspections, and a moratorium on deploying new anti-ballistic missile systems like Trump's Golden Dome.

A new treaty is possible if pressure is put on these governments to come to an agreement, which will build momentum to further nuclear arms control agreements involving more nuclear powers.

As a nuclear-armed state, Britain has clear obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue disarmament in good faith.

Rather than sitting on the sidelines, the government could show leadership and use its diplomatic influence to push for the US and Russia to extend New START.

CND has written to David Riley UK Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament and our members are lobbying Yvette Cooper, Foreign Secretary, urging them to use their influence to secure the extension of the Treaty.

Treaty expiration raises risk of 'accidental catastrophic launches'

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) describes itself as:

the international campaign to stigmatise, prohibit & eliminate nuclear weapons.

Speaking just ahead of the expiration, ICAN director of programmes Susi Snyder told the Canary:

When New START expires, there will no longer be any controls on the number and types of weapons that Russia and the US can deploy which could increase tensions between them and increase the risk of a major nuclear conflict that would devastate the world.

The existence of the New START treaty helped to reduce the risk of conflict by engendering trust and improving understanding between the two countries' personnel on nuclear weapons-related issues.

Once the treaty is defunct, this distrust can only deepen, increasing risks of accidental catastrophic launches.

Russia had already suspended some of these confidence building measures in response to US support for Ukraine, and distrust has already been growing between the two countries about their nuclear weapons intentions and policies, increasing the risk of misunderstandings and accidental conflict.

In response to the discussions about a possible voluntary extension of the treaty, Snyder said:

In the short term, the US and Russia should publicly commit to respect New START's limits while a new framework is negotiated.

They should restart serious disarmament talks and bring their warhead numbers down significantly, which would build confidence with the other nuclear-armed states that it is worthwhile engaging in broader disarmament discussions.

All nuclear armed countries have to recognise that arms control alone is no longer enough.

These weapons need to be eliminated before they are used again and the way to do that is through the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which a majority of countries have already signed or ratified only five years after it came into force.

On 5 February 2026, Trump posted on social media, saying:

Rather than extend 'NEW START' (A badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated), we should have our Nuclear Experts work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future.

Looking to the future of international cooperation on nuclear weapons risks, Snyder said:

Despite the collapse of this last arms control agreement, there is a bright spot on the disarmament horizon - the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which came into force five years ago and a majority of countries have already signed and ratified.

More countries are set to sign and ratify it soon. The more countries that join, the more the diplomatic pressure on the nuclear-armed countries and their allies that endorse the use of nuclear weapons to take action to get rid of these weapons grows.

She said this could work:

in the same way it did for other weapons that cause disproportionate, lingering harm to civilians, such as landmines and cluster munitions.

The TPNW countries will be meeting later in the year for the treaty's first review conference where they will agree on steps to strengthen the treaty, including in its important work to support the people and communities around the world harmed by the more than 2000 nuclear test explosions since 1945.

According to Snyder, the expiration of New START has created:

a real danger the new arms race will accelerate between the US and Russia - more warheads, more delivery systems, more exercises - and other nuclear-armed states will feel pressure to keep up.

That makes every crisis more dangerous and increases the risk of mistakes and miscalculation. It also sends the worst possible signal to the rest of the world: that the nuclear powers are going backwards on disarmament, just when they should be leading.

New START failure shows world 'tipping back towards conflict' - peer

The Green Party peer Jenny Jones told the Canary:

The failure to renew the New START nuclear treaty shows how the world is tipping back towards conflict.

The threat of nuclear weapons being used hasn't been this high for years, but instead of stepping back and negotiating, we have the possibility of Washington and Moscow unleashing a new nuclear arms race.

I'm worried that this sends all the wrong messages ahead of the review of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty later this year.

Featured image via the Canary

By Tom Pashby

Epstein files suggest Trump laundered money for Russian oligarch [ 11-Feb-26 3:01pm ]

Donald Trump and Dmitry Rybolovlev in front of mansion

Welp, looks like Donald Trump has been caught in yet another scandal. This time, he stands accused of laundering money with Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev, as political analyst Brian Allen explained:

MP Debbie Abrahams warns that culture change at DWP is 'too slow' [ 11-Feb-26 2:58pm ]

MP Debbie Abrahams is ripping into the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) again, this time by calling out the vile culture in the department and their slowness in supporting victims of the carers scandal.

Debbie Abrahams calls out DWP culture

The letter follows DWP permanent secretary Peter Schofield's disastrous turn in front of the Work and Pensions Committee last month. During the discussion, Lib Dem Steve Darling accused Schofield of talking "blancmange" and Abrahams asked "how on earth" he could possibly explain the DWP's behaviour.

In a letter to the DWP's Peter Schofield, Abrahams said that the lack of change in culture meant claimants did not trust them. She said that although Schofield said there were changes (though failed to say what), these were "too incremental and too slow".

By all accounts, she absolutely handed him his arse in the letter:

Fundamentally, we believe that the Department is failing to put the needs of vulnerable people first, that it is unwilling to learn from its mistakes and that it shows a lack of urgency to bring about change. Until the Department changes its culture, it will always struggle to build trust with the people it is meant to serve.

Abrahams also called out how much the DWP refuses to own it's mistakes and learn from them. She said there was a "culture of complacency" in the department. She pointed out that the committee raised several issues with Schofield, including the handling of the carers' scandal. Schofield's response to intense questioning was, for the most part, complete bullshit.

She told Schofield in the letter:

When things go wrong, we expect the Department to accept its faults, swiftly provide redress and to learn from its errors. The Department has shown repeated inadequacy in its response to mistakes and a lack of urgency when it comes to righting wrongs.

DWP's great track record? Where?

In the committee hearing, when asked about the carers' scandal, Schofield said

We've got a great track record of putting things right when things go wrong. This is a department that when it knows we have to get things right we put it right.

This is something the committee audibly disagreed with at the time, and something Abrahams all directly calls out in the letter

You told the Committee that DWP has "a great track record of putting right when we get things wrong" - I disagree.

The committee hearing followed the publication of the Sayce Review into carers' allowance overpayments. The report found that 86,900 carers still had outstanding overpayment debts. Crucially it ruled that overpayments on this scale were due to "systematic issues within the department". And not, as another DWP Civil Servant, Neil Couling, claimed, down to individual claimants.

In her letter, Abrahams addresses Couling's comments, saying it:

raises questions about the senior team as a whole under your leadership. It undermines the sincerity of your apology and efforts to rebuild trust. Moreover, I am concerned that these attitudes may be more widespread, and indicative of a culture within the Department that blames claimants for errors and fails to recognise the needs of vulnerable people

She also called out Schofield for refusing to respond directly to questions about Couling in the committee hearing and asked him to respond in writing to the following questions:

How do you explain the failures of Departmental culture that contributed to carers allowance overpayments?

What action will you be taking in your senior team to address the evident attitudinal issues?

DWP have had enough time to fix this

It's not like the DWP hasn't had more than enough time and opportunity to right the carers crisis, but they've failed time and time again.

This is something Abraham's brought up too:

It is difficult to have confidence in your commitment to rectify DWP's mistakes given you have had ample opportunity to fix carers allowance overpayments since at least 2019.

She reminded Schofield that back in 2019 the DWP said they had a strategy to fix the carers allowance crisis and processes in place to prevent overpayments in the future. However, this clearly isn't the case.

Abrahams seethed:

Given the previous assertions by DWP that it would fix carers allowance overpayments, I'm sure you can understand my scepticism about your most recent commitments.

She has demanded Schofield sets out how the DWP will ensure the problems are "actually addressed this time".

Still not finished, Abraham's final blow is on how the DWP still hasn't admitted the blame for this horrific crisis.

I was also disappointed that your admission of fault and apology only covered carers affected by flawed guidance on averaging earnings, which was only one error identified by the Sayce Review. You failed to mention at the start of the session that DWP does not accept that its guidance on allowable expenses was also flawed and does not plan to cancel debts or reimburse repayments related to this guidance

She calls Schofield's failure to do this "disingenuous" and that it undermines the idea that he does actually want to fix things. She also points out that when she did raise the issue, Schofield made a pathetic excuse about "limiting decision makers' discretion". As a result, Abrahams also demanded to know the DWP's position on allowable expenses

why it disagrees with the findings of the Sayce review; whether it will investigate how many people were affected by this issue; and what, if any, redress it is considering.

Schofield stepping down, but pressure must be kept on

It's worth pointing out that since this letter was published, Schofield has announced he's stepping down. It's been insisted that this is for personal reasons, and he will remain in post until July. In a statement, Abrahams said:

The Work and Pensions Select Committee will continue to hold the Government to account on social security and pensions policy including its culture and how policy is delivered.

What's clear from Abraham's letter, along with every other criticism of the DWP, is just how toxic an organisation it is. When the organisation which is supposed to support our most vulnerable instead spends all it's time demonising and blaming them, it is one that is not fit for purpose.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Dispatches showed how 'corporate capture' led to Palestine Action ban [ 11-Feb-26 2:40pm ]

Channel 4's Dispatches programme has looked at the UK government's highly controversial ban of non-violent direct-action group Palestine Action. And through basic journalistic scrutiny that the rest of mainstream media have largely avoided, it laid out how central 'corporate capture' of our politicians was to the politically repressive decision.

Palestine Action and the corporate capture of UK government

Journalist Jonathan Cook summed up the Dispatches episode by saying:

What the programme made clear was that Starmer's government made the unprecedented decision to declare Palestine Action a terrorist organisation not because the group is a terrorist organisation but because large corporations - arms firms like Elbit - have captured the UK government.

One parliamentary stooge Dispatches interviewed was John Woodcock ('Lord Walney') - who's among the clearest examples of corporate capture in UK politics. He has long lobbied on behalf of dodgy industries and repressive foreign states. And he has a particularly close connection to the Israeli apartheid state.

As Cook explained, Woodcock clearly "struggled through his interview":

It was only too clear that his views on the subject had nothing to do with the public good but were shaped by his ties to the arms industries and his role as an Israel lobbyist.

Having long fought to repress freedom of speech and protest on behalf of Israeli settler-colonialism, Woodcock gave a particularly revealing response when interviewer Matt Shea questioned if public outrage over Israel's genocide in Gaza justified regular protests:

In C4's 'Palestine Action, The Truth behind the ban' Israel friend & arms lobbyists Lord Walney attacks regular pro Palestine marches

The reporter points out the organisers may say opposing the slaughter of civilians on this scale demands regular protests. Watch his reaction pic.twitter.com/WUqm2YbHvv

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 10, 2026

The UK's political establishment, with its deep links to the pro-Israel lobby, has long sought to repress dissent on Israel's war crimes. From the Conservatives to Labour and Reform, protection of Israeli interests is non-negotiable.

As Cook outlined, the ban on Palestine Action was:

done at the behest of Elbit Systems - the Israeli arms firm making killer drones used in Gaza targeted by Palestine Action.

Alongside regular government meetings with Elbit before the proscription, the government had also been considering how to:

Reassure Elbit Systems UK and the wider sector affected by Palestine Action that the government cares about the harm the group is causing the private sector [arms industries].

The Palestine Action ban was "wrong"

Apart from the corporate capture of government that led to the ban, Dispatches also noted the:

widespread belief among Home Office staff that the government was "wrong" to proscribe Palestine Action, and there was "disquiet" that the government was using Palestine Action as a way to curtail rights to protest and speech more generally.

The Labour government of Keir Starmer has been consistently intensifying the efforts of his Conservative predecessors to crack down on dissent.

The government's own adviser, meanwhile, revealed how nonsensical the cynical attempt to link Palestine Action with Iran had been:

GOVERNMENT LIES

A clip from last night's C4 Despatches shows that the government's own advisor saw no evidence on claims used by Labour to proscribe Palestine Action.

Jonathan Hall KC slams the phoney accusations of an 'Iran link' as "nudge nudge, wink wink".

Lift The Ban NOW pic.twitter.com/rXv5j5SScB

— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) February 10, 2026

Dispatches also looked at why the Palestine Action ban was so dangerous:

Lord Hain was there when the Terrorism Act was introduced, he has publicly condemned the use of this act against Palestine Action.

He fears it could be used on "all sorts of protestors" and the likes of the Suffragettes and Anti-Apartheid protesters.

"That cannot be justified". pic.twitter.com/ZSllZPQRKV

— Defend Our Juries (@DefendOurJuries) February 10, 2026

Even good mainstream journalism has holes, though

Perhaps Dispatches felt it had to tread very carefully around this issue, but it seemed at points to be way too deferential to government talking points, possibly to show 'impartiality'. It also overused ominous music when interviewing people from Palestine Action, and asked them questions it didn't ask of pro-Israel voices:

Nearly two and a half years into Israels genocide and people are still being asked, do you condemn Hamas?

The journalist asking the question is Matt Shea and the the clip is from Channel 4's Dispatches program 'Palestine Action, The Truth behind the ban' pic.twitter.com/yDDJ2ylcsE

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) February 10, 2026

'The reason I did this was because I oppose killing innocent lives.' @Matt_A_Shea speaks to Palestine Action activist Ellie Kamio immediately after she was granted bail and found not guilty of aggravated burglary. The jury failed to reach a verdict on her other charges. pic.twitter.com/ifBclgCcEZ

— Channel 4 Dispatches (@C4Dispatches) February 9, 2026

Asks a Palestinian "Is Hamas guilty of killing innocent civilians on oc7 & should we condemn that?"
*doesn't get the right answer*
"it should be simple to condemn the killing of innocent Israelis."

Never asks Falter, Hall or Walney to condemn Israel.

— Özen (@Iridescent1985) February 10, 2026

And if Dispatches was going to look at the claim of foreign links to Palestine Action, it would have seemed completely appropriate to look at the prominent role of the Israel lobby in parliament too.

Pretty good but surprisingly never mentioned the Israeli lobbying in UK which was the main reason for Palestine Action being proscribed in the first place

— Mike (@mwally_mike) February 10, 2026

Dispatches will surely have made some people think more carefully about the reasons behind the Palestine Action ban, though. And if it helped even slightly to mainstream the debate over the corporate capture of our political system, that's something we should all be thankful for.

Featured image via the Canary

By Ed Sykes

Marina Purkiss slams rank hypocrisy of Nigel Farage [ 11-Feb-26 2:29pm ]

Marina Purkiss has renewed scrutiny of Reform leader Nigel Farage, arguing that his conduct does not match his divisive public rhetoric.

Farage…

Rails against WFH while employing his wife to WFH

Rails against the EU while taking the EU pension

Rails against "elites" while being bankrolled by them and happily hobnobbing with them

Rails against people speaking other languages while his own kids speak German.… pic.twitter.com/npFfX6Q3uk

— Marina Purkiss (@MarinaPurkiss) February 10, 2026

Farage: 'rules for thee, but not for me'

The post in full reads:

Farage…

Rails against WFH while employing his wife to WFH

Rails against the EU while taking the EU pension

Rails against "elites" while being bankrolled by them and happily hobnobbing with them

Rails against people speaking other languages while his own kids speak German.

Do you spot the pattern?

Rules for thee, but not for me.

Purkiss' rebuttal to Farage comes following his calls for an end to working from home and the 'focus' on employees having a work-life balance. Farage instead stated that it was a 'nonsense' that people are more productive working from home, suggesting that being with 'fellow human beings' would be best.

Yesterday, our own HG hit back at the attack and argued it would have serious negative consequences in practice, saying:

A Reform government would push even more disabled and chronically ill people into work.

Importantly, working from home allows some disabled people to hold down a job. Farage's attempts to end work-from-home whilst also claiming to want more disabled people to have jobs are contradictory and bullshit. If he actually cared about disabled people, he would be encouraging work-from-home, or work from wherever the hell you want to, as long as the work gets done.

Farage is a hypocrite. And basically, you can't work from home unless it serves him and his pumped-up little agenda.

Given the above, we can't help but think Farage is thinking more of ensuring bosses can oversee their inferior staff members, putting them 'back in their place', than anything to do with the wellbeing of workers.

We even wrote at the end of 2025 a roundup of the hypocrisy running rife in Reform, with our own Willem Moore reporting on one of their lies used to gain votes:

As we reported in October, Kent County Council was also eyeing up a 5% Council Tax rise. You'll be glad to know that they did not proceed with this ridiculous 5% figure. They did, however, raise Council Tax by 4.989%.

So really, when you think about it, that's a saving of 0.11 percentage points for the people of Kent who were worried about the 5% rise.

Purkiss' timely reminder of Farage's well-documented hypocrisy has been well-received on X, with one account reminding us:

Reform is a scam https://t.co/Is6XApc1Cr

— Trevor McArdle (@McardleTrevor) February 11, 2026

This account points out yet again the double standard for people who work for Farage and co:

On the side of the bosses, not the workers

Once again, Reform and its privileged MP's prove that they will never be on the side of ordinary people. Instead, they will always be on the side of the already-rich and powerful, or those who work directly for them.

After all, working from home is good for Farage's wife, but not for ordinary people living ever more strenuous lives.

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

The government response to the Autism Act Committee lacks any substance - it's unacceptable [ 11-Feb-26 2:23pm ]

The government has released its official response to the report, Time to Deliver, which the Autism Act Committee released at the end of 2025. It's perhaps unsurprising to see that the response avoids accountability and refuses to place any care or timelines on the recommendations given across the report.

What is the Time to Deliver report, and why does it matter?

The Autism Act 2009 specifically mandated that there must be a national strategy around autism, and produced statutory guidance. The strategy should have been updated in 2019, which was delayed until 2021. And whilst it made significant commitments, it only accounted for a single year. At this point in time, the government said it was prioritising updating the statutory guidance.

The House of Lords Autism Act Committee was appointed to consider the impact of the Act, and recommend necessary changes. To many, the report is imperfect: it doesn't acknowledge some of the true systemic natures of ableism and neuronormativity. And arguably it doesn't go far enough. But it does include the views of many autistic people and their advocates. And it does make extensive recommendations for the future.

Time to Deliver argues that the government must begin to develop a new all-age, cross-government strategy which can replace the current version went it expires in July 2026. The authors argue this should be based on the six themes they use in the report. These themes formed the basis of the questions the public could respond to:

Improving acceptance.
Identification and assessment.
Reducing health inequalities.
Education and transitions.
Employment.
Criminal justice.

They also call for the involvement of autistic people at every stage, a costed plan for implementation of the new strategy, an accountable minister, and the strategy to set out how the government will give services the support they need. These elements are particularly crucial in this austerity version of society where there's not enough funding reaching services. You can't make recommendations when no one can afford to make them happen.

The House of Lords Autism Act Committee said:

The Committee recommends that the government must develop the new autism strategy now, so it is ready to launch when the current one expires in July 2026. The government must identify priority outcomes, produce a costed, deliverable plan to achieve them, and make clear who is responsible and accountable for delivery.

Too often, decisions about autistic people's lives are made for them, not by them. This must change. Autistic people and those who support them must be meaningfully involved in every stage of the development and delivery of the new strategy.

The government response is feeble

Thousands of autistic people and those supporting them took part in this inquiry. It's apparently a record number of written submissions for any House of Lords committee. This shows how significantly issues of support and care for autistic people are having an impact across the UK. And it's extremely disappointing that the government has effectively dismissed this in its response.

In direct contrast to the careful recommendations of the committee, the government's response lacks any real substance at all. It commits to almost nothing, apart from the existing 10 Year Health Plan for England, which does not mention autistic people once in its entirety, and to the existing commitments of work.

This notably includes the independent review into 'prevalence and support' for autism, ADHD and mental health conditions. This is of course the highly problematic review into the fallacy of 'overdiagnosis'.

The response is flimsy, and says it welcomes the recommendations without any real intention to act upon them. There is seemingly no commitment to any timelines for a new national strategy. It would be a breach of statutory process if there is no follow-up action.

On the topic of meaningful engagement, the government response says:

We recognise that meaningful engagement will take time, so a balance will need to be struck as to what level of further engagement is required, and the current strategy will remain in force while we do this.

Co-production and engaging with the community cannot function as an excuse not to produce and act on a new strategy. Although engagement is important, action needs to happen effectively, efficiently and in a timely manner. Considering how much meaningful engagement the House of Lords Committee achieved in a relatively short time, it's not impossible.

Autism charities are not happy with the response

A collection of the UK's autism charities (National Autistic Society, Ambitious About Autism, Autistica, Autism Action and Autism Alliance UK) released a joint statement after the official release of the response, arguing that the response is unacceptable. They argue there is no evidence that the government intends to develop a new national strategy or:

do anything meaningful in compliance with the Autism Act.

Their statement says:

Vague commitments will do nothing to address the real barriers autistic people face… Once again, autism is lost in generic strategies, despite clear evidence of the distinct risks autistic people face and the need for specific, targeted, joined-up action. The House of Lords' report articulates these risks powerfully…

Every day the Government delays meaningful action, autistic children, young people and adults will continue to face shorter life expectancy, higher risk of suicide, mental health crisis, exclusion from education, family breakdown, long-term confinement in mental health hospitals, and one of the lowest employment rates of any group in society. These outcomes are shameful.

The charities note that harm is happening right now, in every sector of society. Advocates, charities and autistic people are disappointed by the response, but more importantly, it allows for autistic lives to continue to be placed into danger across various sectors.

Delaying a new national strategy is not just about paperwork. Although we know that things like statutory guidance and strategies do not liberate us, they are a part of how action happens. And issues of harm in systems like healthcare or psychiatric care are ongoing for thousands of autistic people.

The damage our community faces is not going anywhere. This committee report could have been a moment to commit to real change. It's unsurprising, but disappointing, that the response to a report full of genuine views and recommendations could fall so flat.

Featured image via the Canary

By Charli Clement

US funding of MAGA think tanks targets UK online safety debate [ 11-Feb-26 2:14pm ]

US plans to fund MAGA-aligned think tanks in Europe could reshape debates over Britain's Online Safety Act and global platform regulation.

A new transatlantic political debate is emerging around Britain's Online Safety Act. The issue is now being shaped not only in Westminster but also in Washington.

Reporting by the Financial Times says the US State Department plans to fund MAGA-aligned think tanks and charities across Europe. The programme links to the upcoming 250th anniversary of American independence. Officials say it will promote what they describe as "American values," including free speech.

A "freedom of speech tour" for MAGA

According to the report, US Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah B. Rogers travelled to London, Paris, Rome, and Milan last year. Officials described the trip as a "freedom of speech tour." During the visit, she met right-wing think tanks and political figures and discussed how grant funding could support their activities.

The MAGA-linked programme is expected to focus in part on opposing online-regulation laws such as the UK's Online Safety Act and the EU's Digital Services Act. US officials argue these rules threaten American technology companies and free expression online.

Across Europe, governments are tightening rules aimed at protecting children and reducing harmful online content. Countries such as Australia have also introduced tougher limits on children's access to social media. This shows how global regulation in this area is moving in a stricter direction.

At the same time, Washington has increased criticism of these measures, arguing that they unfairly target US-based platforms.

State Department response

In response to questions from the Canary, a State Department spokesperson said the MAGA think tank funding represents "a transparent, lawful use of resources to advance U.S. interests and values abroad." The spokesperson added that officials were "not shy" about supporting American aims overseas. They rejected claims the programme was a "slush fund," stating that every grant would be publicly disclosed and accountable.

Campaigners and digital-policy researchers take a different view. Dr. Elinor Carmi of City St George's, University of London, told the Canary:

Just like any democratic society, freedom must be regulated so people are not harmed." She added that the same principle should apply to digital platforms, where regulators have taken years to address harms affecting children and other vulnerable users.

The issue is especially sensitive in Britain, where the Online Safety Act has already generated intense political debate between those calling for stronger protections and those warning about the risks of expanding state oversight of online speech.

A growing influence debate

For the UK, the question is no longer only how the Online Safety Act will be enforced. It is also whether state-funded international MAGA-linked networks will begin to play a more visible role in shaping domestic regulatory debates. As these efforts expand, some observers ask a broader question: are we seeing routine diplomatic advocacy, or the gradual normalisation of what critics once described as dark-money politics, now operating more openly through state-backed influence campaigns?

Featured image via the Canary

By Ranjan Balakumaran

Jewish activists disrupt Nigel Farage at launch of Reform UK's "Jewish Alliance" [ 11-Feb-26 2:11pm ]

Protester holds flyer saying Reform UK Are Not Your Friends at launch of Reform Jewish Alliance

Jewish activists from Jewish Anti-Zionist Action, and other grassroots groups within the Jewish Bloc for Palestine have protested and interrupted the launch event of the "Reform Jewish Alliance".

As Reform UK leader Nigel Farage took the stage to address the launch event's attendees at London's Central Synagogue, a group of protesters in the audience disrupted his speech. They loudly accused him and members the Reform party of "inciting attacks" on refugees and minority groups. And they claimed that Farage's party "would have deported" the protesters' ancestors when they arrived in Britain as Jewish refugees in the first half of the 20th century.

Jewish protesters criticise synagogue for hosting Reform

Protesters also gathered outside the Central Synagogue to picket the launch event and protest against the use of Jewish religious spaces to host such events. They accused the venue of providing a platform for racism, xenophobia and antisemitism. And protesters held signs highlighting a series of high-profile controversial quotes by Reform UK-affiliated politicians. Several referenced antisemitic remarks which Nigel Farage allegedly made during his time at Dulwich College.

Max Hammer, a spokesperson for the Jewish Bloc for Palestine, said:

It's not surprising to see disgraced right-wing provocateurs and former spokespeople for Israel's genocidal government make overtures to Farage's Reform.

But we're dismayed and disgusted to see the Central Synagogue play along. How can a synagogue provide a platform to a man who allegedly spent his school days saying that Hitler was right?

We cannot stay silent when known antisemites use our sacred spaces to try and launder their reputation. Farage and his ilk are dangerous to Jews, dangerous to Muslims, and dangerous to all minority groups in the UK. No one in our community should let him forget that.

A coalition of progressive Jewish groups had previously decried the launch of Reform Jewish Alliance. Reporting suggests the group will aim to provide members with a programme of regular events featuring senior politicians from the far-right party and figures in the Jewish community.

The Jewish Bloc for Palestine previously released a statement denouncing the Synagogue's plans to host the Reform Jewish Alliance launch. They called it a "desecration of [the synagogue's] purpose" and encouraged Jewish community leaders to condemn the event.

The Reform Jewish Alliance was reportedly initiated by noted right-wing Jewish activist Gary Mond. And its leader will be Jason Pearlman, a former advisor to Israeli president Isaac Herzog.

Amid the high-profile accusations of antisemitism against Farage, the controversy surrounding its launch symbolises the growing political polarisation within the UK Jewish community. Recent polling by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research indicates that support for Reform UK has risen sharply among Jews in the past year. Although at 11%, it remains substantially below the levels of support in the overall British population.

Featured image via Talia Woodin / Jewish Anti-Zionist Action

Ash Sarkar lays bare Starmer's double standard [ 11-Feb-26 2:04pm ]

Novara Media's Ash Sarkar has laid bare the blatant double standard in the Labour Party's vetting process:

Worth remembering that Faiza Shaheen was deselected as a Labour candidate for liking tweets from the Greens *before* she was ever a Labour member.

What could possibly explain such an intensive vetting process for the left, and such an apparently shoddy one for the right? https://t.co/hSxjZfYKfN

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) February 11, 2026

Labour have one rule for one lot, another for the rest

Sarkar's interjection followed a post from the Times assistant political editor Geri Scott. Scott referred to a comment from Education minister Georgia Gould, who insisted the government were 'unaware' of Matthew Doyle's links to Sean Morton when announcing his peerage.

Doyle reportedly campaigned for Morton, a former Moray Labour councillor. A court sentenced Morton in 2018 for possessing Child Sexual Abuse Materials (CSAM). Authorities brought charges against him in 2016, yet Labour waited a year before suspending him from the party. A recent investigation found that Doyle was jailed for further similar offences last year, shining a spotlight on Labour's selective vetting.

Despite Gould's deflection, Scott has pointed out the government were aware prior to the letters patent being sealed and passed to the King, adding:

A govt source says: "There is no established precedent for withdrawing a peerage nomination after the announcement stage."

An X account responded and challenged Gould's links to Mandelson herself:

Georgia Gould? daughter if Philip Gould? Appointed by Peter Mandelson ? See? dots dots dots all joining up

Sarkar points out this double standard by referring to the Labour party's treatment of Faiza Shaheen. The party suspended Shaheen prior to the general election. The scandalous suspension came after old posts showed Shaheen liking content from the Green Party. Sarkar astutely points out those likes were prior to being a member of the Labour Party, whilst shining a light on what is (or isn't) a 'sackable offence' in the eyes of Labour leader and PM Keir Starmer.

One X account commented:

You can't say they're not thorough when investigating things they are bothered about, it's such a shame they have really bad priorities.

They can hardly say they weren't warned, with the leader of the SNP tabling a motion 4 weeks ago in response to Doyle's peerage:

It's just 4 weeks since I tabled a motion opposing this very appointment to the House of Lords.

Why did Keir Starmer ignore the warnings, and the victims, and appoint him anyway?https://t.co/oBXOdUm9hF https://t.co/NJxMbFujGm pic.twitter.com/IiVFNQwt6O

— Stephen Flynn MP (@StephenFlynnSNP) February 10, 2026

Vetting process clearly works, but the boss shouldn't get to decide

This issue once again exposes a blatant double standard at the heart of government. It also reveals the autonomy afforded to those in charge when it comes to deciding what 'issues' matter to them.

Sexual offences against children should really be on that list of concerns. And Starmer must answer why it doesn't seem to actually bother him in the first place.

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

Epstein's 'broligarchy' is being ignored by the corporate media [ 11-Feb-26 1:20pm ]

The release of another tranche of documents from the Epstein Files by the US Department of Justice may have led the mainstream media in another direction, towards Jeffrey Epstein's espionage connections. Corporate media has also failed to frame the victims and survivors as being central to his and countless others' crimes.

However, another part of this story remains unexamined: Epstein was the linchpin in a full-on criminal enterprise that involved financial crimes as well as sexual abuse and exploitation.

This enterprise involved money laundering, art theft and fraud, currency and market manipulation, insider trading, banking and property fraud, racehorse switching and doping, on top of human trafficking and sexual slavery. And this list is by no means exhaustive.

Investigative journalist Carole Cadwalldr talks about the "broligarchy", and she's not wrong. Epstein counted an all-male coterie of billionaires among his circle. They were invited to lunches, dinners, and "conferences" at Epstein's various properties around the world.

Epstein's host of shell and "front" companies is the stuff of legend - certainly too many to list here. Thanks to his publicist Peggy Siegel, Epstein was hailed as a "financial wizard" in some quarters, but in reality, his wealth was down to two men - Victoria's Secret owner Les Wexner, who gave Epstein his $56m New York townhouse, and Leon Black, who gave him a reported $158m.

What's clear from the new release of files is the extent to which he sought social and financial legitimacy by courting high-net-worth individuals - and the richer, the better.

Here are the richest individuals who are central to this.

Elon Musk and Epstein

Net worth: $850bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 1084

Reported as the world's richest man, Musk has previously said that Epstein had invited him to his island but he had declined.

While he has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case, the documents released include emails showing Musk had discussed travelling there on more than one occasion - there's a proposed 2012 trip in which he asked Epstein, "What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?"

The emails from November 2012 show Epstein asked how many people Musk would need transporting by helicopter to the island and Musk replies that it would only be himself and his then-wife, Talulah Riley.

Meanwhile, an email from Musk to Epstein on Christmas Day in 2012 shows Musk asking whether the financier had any parties planned because he needs to "let loose".

"I've been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose," he writes, adding that a "peaceful island experience" is the opposite of what he's looking for.

In another batch of emails from 2013, Musk and Epstein discuss a visit to the paedophile's island, working on logistics and dates.

There is no evidence that Musk did take a trip to his island.

On X, Musk posted that he was "well aware that some email correspondence with [Epstein] could be misinterpreted and used by detractors to smear my name".

He added: "I don't care about that, but what I do care about is that we at least attempt to prosecute those who committed serious crimes with Epstein, especially regarding heinous exploitation of underage girls."

Jeff Bezos

Net worth: $249bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 189

In 2004, literary agent John Brockman hosted a dinner at a restaurant in Monterey, California, where he hoped to introduce the scientist authors he represented to wealthy individuals. Among those invited included Google co-founder Larry Page, Jeff Bezos and Jeffrey Epstein. The annual event was known colloquially as the "billionaires' dinner".

Whatever passed between Bezos and Epstein at the dinner, Bezos extended an invitation to Ghislaine Maxwell to attend his exclusive Campfire Event in 2018. Maxwell would attend the event three times, on one occasion taking tech firm CEO Scott Borgerson. When Maxwell went on the run after Epstein's arrest on child trafficking charges, it would be Borgerson's property she would take refuge in.

Bill Gates

Net worth: $168bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 2512

Two emails from July 2013 drafted by Epstein suggest that Gates may have caught a sexually-transmitted disease and sought advice on how to secretly give his wife Melinda antibiotics. But it is unclear if these emails were sent. Both were sent from Epstein's email account and back to the same account, while no email account associated with Gates is visible.

Gates visited his properties a number of times, including his island, Little St James. Epstein tried to broker a venture between Gate's foundation and JP Morgan Chase Bank but it fizzled out. Meanwhile, Epstein inserted himself into the picture when Gates' chief advisor Boris Nikolic was negotiating his departure with a $14m payout.

A spokesperson for the Microsoft co-founder told the BBC:

These claims - from a proven, disgruntled liar - are absolutely absurd and completely false.

They added:

The only thing these documents demonstrate is Epstein's frustration that he did not have an ongoing relationship with Gates and the lengths he would go to entrap and defame.

Sergey Brin

Net worth: $255bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 258

Epstein was in contact with at least 20 prominent tech executives and investors. Musk, Bezos and Google co-founder Brin attended a dinner during the TED conference in California in March 2011. Brin visited Epstein's private island and emails show that the pair made plans to dine out.

He also corresponded frequently with Ghislaine Maxwell, and in the files there's an email about meeting up with Epstein and Maxwell during a trip to New York in 2003. "Let me know what works for you and Jeffrey," Brin writes.

Obsessed with transhumanism. Epstein was especially interested in Brin's fiancée at the time, Anne Wojcicki, biotech entrepreneur and 23andMe co-founder. The company filed for bankruptcy last year.

Richard Branson

Net worth: $2.8bn

No. of times mentioned in the Epstein Files: 635

There are numerous pictures of the British Virgin Group founder with Epstein, including on Branson's island, Necker (as a friend of Branson's daughter, Holly, Kate Middleton holidayed here with her family and reportedly asked Branson for business advice). Meanwhile, in an email exchange from 2013, he appears to tell him that it was "really nice" seeing him, before adding: "Any time you're in the area would love to see you. As long as you bring your harem!"

Virgin Group has claimed that "harem" referred to three adult members of Epstein's team, adding:

Any contact Richard and Joan Branson had with Epstein took place on only a few occasions more than twelve years ago, and was limited to group or business settings, such as a charity tennis event.

However, the pictures paint a different story and point to a more intimate relationship between the two men. Branson was also a fan of Prince William's charity, Wild Aid, currently under fire for accepting a $50,000 donation from him.

Epstein's links need to be dismantled

While being mentioned in the Epstein Files is not an indication of wrongdoing, it certainly begs the question of why anyone would go to an Epstein function more than once. What were they getting in return? Was a relationship with Epstein really worth risking everything? For example, if Google co-founder Sergey Brin has used his own search engine, he would have found Epstein's widely reported conviction for child sex offences.

The files story is one of systemic failure and draws attention to the inability of law enforcement agencies around the world to deal with criminals when they are wealthy and influential. But Epstein was no "kingpin", merely a cog in a global wheel of male patriarchal supremacy - one that must be dismantled finally and completely.

For more on the the Epstein Files, please read our article on how the media circus around Epstein is erasing the experiences of victims and survivors here.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alice Charles

Lawmakers say US justice department covering for billionaires and exposing Epstein's victims [ 11-Feb-26 12:26pm ]

US members of Congress who viewed the latest Epstein files unredacted have accused the US department of justice (DOJ) of covering up for billionaires and exposing victims. US lawmakers are entitled to view the original files under US legislation on the investigation.

The same legislation says that federal officials can only redact to protect the identity of victims and explicitly excludes protecting others. However, the DOJ has obscured many names of Epstein associates and perpetrators.

Epstein cover-up

Representative Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the congressional judiciary committee, said that the DOJ is "in a cover-up mode". He added that the chaotic and illegal nature of the redactions is either "spectacular incompetence" or, more likely, deliberate illegality:

I went over there, and I was able to determine, at least I believe, that there were tons of completely unnecessary redactions, in addition to the failure to redact the names of victims, and so that was troubling to us.

They violated that precept [of redacting only to protect victims] by releasing the names of a lot of victims, which is either spectacular incompetence and sloppiness on their part, or, as a lot of the survivors believe, a deliberate threat to other survivors who are thinking about coming forward, that they need to be careful because they can be exposed and have their personal information dragged through the mud as well.

I saw the names of lots of people, who were redacted for mysterious or baffling or inscrutable reasons.

Lawyers have said US law is unclear whether it's legal to reveal the redacted names. However, Raskin's Democrat colleague Ro Khanna used his congressional privilege to read out the powerful names he had seen:

Raskin also named Victoria's Secret founder Les Wexner, as a wealthy figure whose name had been blacked out. He added that he was going to demand that Trump's attorney general Pam Bondi will correct the redactions when she testifies to his committee on Wednesday 11 February:

We're going to start by posing questions directly to attorney general Bondi about the process that produced such flawed results, and that has created such mystery. But also, we want to get a commitment from the Department of Justice to clean it up as quickly as possible, and to get them to release the millions of other documents that are still out there.

The DOJ has released only about half of the Epstein files. It has admitted that it is withholding the worst, and that this includes footage of rapes, torture and murder of helpless victims.

For more on the the Epstein Files, please read the Canary's article on how the media circus around Epstein is erasing the experiences of victims and survivors.

Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Forbes Breaking News

Epstein wrote in prison "JAIL OUT = 10". Guess what date he 'died'? [ 11-Feb-26 12:13pm ]

Handwritten notes made in prison by serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein show him writing "jail out = 10". It may well indicate that Epstein expected to be out of prison on the 10th day of a month, which is, of course, the day he allegedly died. Or, it could be the ramblings of a predatory child rapist who was becoming increasingly unhinged.

Epstein's handwritten notes: clues or ramblings?

Epstein's 'death' has now been cast into doubt by evidence found in the latest release of US government files. Prosecutors prepared an announcement of his supposed suicide a day before it happened. A subpoena revealed that an anonymous message board post describing Epstein's removal from prison - posted before his 'death' was announced - had been written by a prison guard on duty that night.

The latest discovery will only fuel suspicions that Epstein is still alive.

File EFTA00134596 and its adjacent release EFTA00134597 contain notes scribbled on a yellow pad in Epstein's spidery handwriting. While much of it is either coded or difficult to read, much also is not.

One of the pages, alongside sketches that may show containers or building layouts, has clear mentions of:

• Israel
• Jet - US prop
• Guards
• govt clear
• Niger/Nigeria
• Visa
• Red notice (a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action).
• Gangsters
• Banks
• Computer
• Tourist
• Gaza
• Muslim

Along with several names:

But the other is briefer. Shown upside down in the file, when rotated it shows, among initials:

• JAIL OUT = 10

What all of this means when put together is unclear - but it could be that Epstein was laying out his train of thought around some kind of plan. Or, it could be the desperate and deranged scribblings of a man who, even then, did not care about his victims - only himself. All of this will only add to speculation the child rapist's death was not all that it seemed.

For more on the the Epstein Files, please read our article on how the media circus around Epstein is erasing the experiences of victims and survivors here.

Featured image via the Canary

"In Somalia, we execute paedos": Ilhan Omar's Trump burn was felt by his ancestors [ 11-Feb-26 11:59am ]

US politician Ilhan Omar has burned Donald Trump so hard that it was felt by an ancestor in the small town of Kallstadt in Germany's Rhineland in 1608.

Omar has often clashed with Trump. Proudly Muslim, left-wing, and Somali, the firebrand Minnesota democrat embodies everything Trump and his goons despise. She has never been cowed before The Mighty Hairpiece and today was no exception.

Omar was commenting on a new Fox interview in which Trump was once again putting the boot into Somali-Americans - including Omar specifically. The president has often singled out the group to whip up hatred in his second term.

Trump told Fox News:

Somalia has come in here — what they've done to our country, these people — they've come into our country, and what they've done with that fake congresswoman. She's so bad.

Trump: "Somalia has come in here — what they've done to our country, these people — they've come into our country, and what they've done with that fake congresswoman. She's so bad." pic.twitter.com/SX5idZqV3R

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 10, 2026

Omar spotted the clip and noted:

The leader of the Pedophile Protection Party is trying to deflect attention from his name being all over the Epstein files. At least in Somalia they execute pedophiles not elect them.

The leader of the Pedophile Protection Party is trying to deflect attention from his name being all over the Epstein files.

At least in Somalia they execute pedophiles not elect them. https://t.co/xC3Ype3zXI

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 10, 2026

Trump is under pressure over the small matter of his name cropping up literally thousands of times in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Epstein files.

In case you've been cut off in a mineshaft for a few months, Trump's long association with the dead child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein is causing him no end of bother.

He's also been framing Somali people as some sort of enemy within, not least in Minnesota where his paramilitary goons have executed two people this year.

Ilhan's fun day out gathering Trump together

What follows is simply series of GIFs because no words can describe how hard this went:

"At least in Somalia they execute pedophiles not elect them." https://t.co/smDgJahPTF pic.twitter.com/yEmoPu01o2

— TTCA - The Musical (@Brosnan_in_1997) February 11, 2026

Also this one:

GET THEMMMMMM https://t.co/yjuCYAaPIU pic.twitter.com/yz1ozGLDQV

—

Saudis challenge William over UK 'royal' Epstein links [ 11-Feb-26 11:01am ]

The Saudis have castigated 'heir to the throne' William for his Epstein-linked uncle during his visit to Saudi Arabia this week. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with an appalling human rights record, but it is still able to look down on the UK and US establishment's cosiness with murderous paedophiles.

Saudi media challenged the royal in Riyadh, with a reporter demanding to know whether the Windsors have "done enough around the Andrew and Epstein issue". He ignored the question and walked off. That'll be a 'no', then.

The US justice department's latest, intentionally-chaotic release of Epstein files show further disturbing images of Andrew with anonymised girls. They also show Andrew leaking confidential information and Epstein trafficking another young woman to the UK for him. Mountbatten-Windsor paid now-deceased Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre around £12m in an out-of-court settlement. This was funded by the monarchy and therefore by UK taxpayers.

Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of all titles in December 2025. The public has repeatedly challenged his brother Charles in recent weeks for his failure to take more serious action against him. Charles has now said he will 'support' the police investigation.

It remains to be seen how exactly the royal family intends to make any sort of amends to the victims and survivors shoved into the spotlight during this debacle.

Featured image via FCDO

Hapless DWP don't know which water companies pocketed £22.4m in Universal Credit deductions [ 11-Feb-26 10:33am ]

The Canary has revealed how during a 12-month period, water companies leached £22.4m from customers' Universal Credit via the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

However, in obtaining the figure, we also discovered that the DWP has no record of what each company has been seizing from welfare claimants. When already vulnerable benefits claimants are in debt to water companies, the DWP will then allow these privatised water companies to deduct benefits from desperate claimants.

Apparently it needs saying: water is not a luxury

DWP doesn't know the scale of water companies' Universal Credit deductions

The Canary submitted freedom of information (FOI) requests to the department for regional and parliamentary constituency data on water deductions. In order to comply with the request, it appeared that the DWP had to collate this data from its records. In other words, until the Canary queried the proportion of third party deductions the water industry had made, it was not information the DWP had already calculated.

What's more, through a series of further FOIs, the DWP admitted to the Canary that it doesn't know how much each water company has deducted individually.

The DWP said that this was because:

data on deduction requests from specific organisations or the date a deduction request was made is not readily available for Universal Credit.

As such, it told the Canary that to "explore the available datasets" and "collate the relevant data" would take it over the cost limits in the FOI Act. But the admission ultimately underscored how the DWP has made no efforts to assess the scale of individual companies clawing back aggressive arrears through the benefits system.

What water companies took £22.4m in Universal Credit?

The Canary also attempted to find out how this divided up for water versus sewerage services. But in response to a further FOI, the DWP said that:

The Universal Credit deductions data does not state the name of a water company owed money, or reason for the debt, and as the water arrears data is not broken down, we cannot determine whether any deduction is for water supply or sewerage.

Unfortunately, outside official statistics, it's really difficult to get a read on individual water company deductions.

The first reason for this is that water supplier coverage overlaps in some constituencies. So, while we can use obtainable data showing coverage by constituency, companies don't actually always supply water services to all postcodes within these electoral boundaries.

It's also not the case constituencies always have the same sewerage providers to their water suppliers. In other words, the deduction could come from either company administering these services. That further complicates calculating what each company is deducting.

However, under the Universal Credit priority order, the water supplier makes deductions first for any arrears. The company providing wastewater services can only start taking deductions once the water debt is cleared.

Because it comes first in the order of priority, it's probable that the lion's share of these deductions is for water supply services. Ultimately though, it's not possible to establish from the data available how much is for water, and how much for sewerage arrears.

Water companies won't say, naturally

The Canary contacted 13 of the largest water and sewerage companies. We asked them directly to provide figures on their Universal Credit deductions. Predictably, not a single company offered this information. By and large, despite a few initially responding that they would look into this, water firms ignored our query. Only two companies eventually came back to confirm that they were not willing to supply these figures.

A spokesperson for Pennon Group, South West Water's parent company, responded saying that:

The information you have requested is commercially sensitive but all Universal Credit deductions are managed in line with DWP guidelines.

Meanwhile, Dwr Cymru came back with a similar dismissal:

We're unable to provide specific figures for Universal Credit deductions received by Dŵr Cymru for 2024 and 2025 as this information is commercially sensitive.

However, we can confirm that deductions are managed in line with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) guidelines, including the Fair Repayment Rate and deduction cap changes, which aim to ensure affordability for customers.

Our focus remains on supporting customers in financial difficulty with affordable payment arrangements.

In both instances then, water firms leaned on the claim it's "commercially sensitive" information to refuse the data.

In reality, it's nonsense for them to suggest this. For one, water companies already publish data about their 'bad debt'. As just one example, they will include financial information on County Court Judgements (CCJ) against their customers in annual reports.

More likely, firms fear the reputational fallout of the public learning just how much they're hammering their poorest customers.

The DWP should turn its attention to the real fraudsters

The Labour government continues to justify brutal disability benefit cuts and dystopian surveillance with nonsense rhetoric around the so-called 'benefits bill'. Yet, the DWP couldn't put figures to the welfare it's funnelling into the pockets of privatised water firms.

Perhaps it's time the DWP turned its attention to the corporate criminal water corporations draining the welfare system for profits they neither need, nor deserve.

Featured image via the author

By Hannah Sharland

The DWPs top civil servant has resigned [ 11-Feb-26 12:26am ]

The Department for Work and Pensions' most senior civil servant has resigned. Peter Schofield has faced furious criticism since the true scale of the carers' allowance scandal was brought to light. However, the decision is said to be due to personal reasons, rather than taking responsibility for the DWP's failures.

A catalogue of failures from the DWP

In November 2025, an independent review found that the scandal was in no way the carers' fault. Instead, it placed the blame squarely at the feet of the DWP. The review said longstanding systemic issues within the department, unlawful internal guidance and poor design and communication were to blame.

The review found that many carers ended up in thousands of pounds of debt. Some also contemplated suicide due to the distress of being expected to pay back their overpayments.

You'd think, in light of the review, that the DWP would show a tiny bit of remorse. But another senior official in the department came under fire when he blamed carers for failing to report changes.

In an internal blog post, Neil Couling said:

Incidentally, what has been missed in all the [media] coverage is that this error (and hands up we made it and we will put it right) affects only a relatively small number of cases and wasn't the cause of the original complaint. Because at the heart of the overpayment issues in CA is a failure to report changes of circumstances

This is despite the government taking responsibility. In a statement read by Baroness Sherlock, Stephen Timms said

The Review finds that some carers could not have known that they were building up overpayments because it was not clear how their earnings would affect their entitlement, and this lack of clarity was due to issues with operational guidance. The Government accepts this and we will act to put it right.

Schofield hauled before the committee

In January 2026, Schofield was forced to answer to the Work and Pensions committee for the department's crimes, as well as Couling's disgusting comments. Chair of the committee Debbie Abrahams asked him how the DWP could justify not making any changes and the department's attitude towards carers.

His response was a masterclass in bluster, culminating in

We were making a difference

Schofield was also taken to task by disabled MP Steve Darling, who accused him of basically talking rubbish:

You've given me a lot of blancmange that I'm finding difficult to nail to the ceiling what clear evidence of management change is there and I'm concerned that you're not able to give me any.

What a coincidence

Whilst neither the DWP or Schofield mentioned the carers allowance scandal in their statements, it feels like a pretty big coincidence

In a message to colleagues, Schofield said

My decision to leave the department is not one I have taken lightly. It has been an absolute privilege to serve, first as director general, finance and then as your permanent secretary.

He said one of his highlights was

the massive achievement of completing the rollout of Universal Credit for our working age customers

He continued that this

paved the way for our transformation journey - and our continued focus on doing things better for our customers and colleagues - providing support in better and more effective ways

I'm not sure I would class something that left thousands of vulnerable claimants at the mercy of cruel sanctions as a success, but then I'm not a DWP ghoul.

It's also another absolutely huge coincidence that this was announced whilst the press is distracted by Keir Starmer's premiership imploding.

Campaigners must keep the pressure on DWP

Schofield will remain in his role until July, which means there's still plenty of time for him to be held accountable. His leaving also shouldn't see the end of pressure on the government for justice for the victims of the carers' scandal.

We need to fight harder than ever to ensure the department and his predecessor to take responsibility.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Watch: Jewish anti-Zionists disrupt Farage 'Jews for fascism' event [ 10-Feb-26 11:40pm ]

The Jewish Anti-Zionist Action group has disrupted Nigel Farage's so-called 'Reform Jewish Alliance' launch. Jews for fascism, who'da thought?

A statement on the group's social media says that:

As well as picketing outside the Central Synagogue, which was hosting the event, we also infiltrated and disrupted from inside, reminding Farage and all in attendance what Reform actually stands for:

Racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, queerphobia, and xenophobic anti-immigration policies that would have seen Jewish refugees, many of which were our own family, prevented from entering the UK last century.

We will not stand by whilst fascists are welcomed into our community and places of worship.

10-Feb-26

Epstein ordered 330 gallons body-dissolving acid to island as FBI opened investigation [ 10-Feb-26 10:50pm ]

Epstein orders sulphuric acid to his island

An invoice featured in the latest batch of Epstein files, reveals that Jeffrey ordered 330 gallons of concentrated sulphuric acid to be delivered to his paedophile island in 2018. The order was placed on the same day the FBI opened a new child-trafficking case against him:

Other documents in the latest US government release suggest that Epstein used sulphuric acid for water treatment. However, the acid has also notoriously been used by criminal gangs to dissolve bodies. Orders for large quantities of acid would, of course, need a pretext.

The US justice department (DOJ) has admitted that evidence is it still withholding includes footage of torture, rape and murder. Many victims of Epstein and his twisted circle have never been found. Files in the DOJ release even accuse Epstein and his guests of eating some victims.

Featured image via the Canary

CEC candidate: Your Party 'shouldn't be about what people at the top want' [ 10-Feb-26 10:01pm ]

The final election phase to decide Your Party's collective leadership has begun. And for many, it has become a race to determine how much member empowerment and control there will be. As one candidate for Yorkshire & The Humber told the Canary:

This party and its growth and its development shouldn't be down to what a few people—who have found themselves at the top of it before any democratic structure's been put in place—think it should be like.

'Open Your Party up to the hundreds of thousands of people who need it'

Chris Saltmarsh is on the Grassroots Left slate in the Central Executive Committee (CEC) elections. And while he called this slate "really diverse," he described how everyone participating broadly shares:

A political vision and understanding for what we want the party to be.

That centres around "maximum member democracy".

Saltmarsh explained why this is so important for him, saying:

Most people have seen the [Your Party founding] process and thought: 'oh, this doesn't feel like a welcoming space where I can come and express my politics and learn and develop and contribute to building this project. It feels like a space where I have to come and pick a side in a factional feud and I'm expected to care about this very detailed and, probably to most people, irrelevant stuff.'

I think people don't want to be involved in a party where it appears that it's the source for people to litigate these personal feuds. And I think they don't want to be involved in a party where it doesn't feel like they have any say.

Statistics seem to back that up. Because while around 800,000 people initially expressed interest, only about 1% actually became full members who participated in the votes at the Your Party's founding conference. Something that deterred hundreds of thousands of people. And for many, it's clear what that was.

Saltmarsh called for an open, inclusive culture going forwards, stressing:

We should open this up to the hundreds of thousands of people who have a stake in this party existing. If I want the party to be eco-socialist… then it's not for me or anyone else to say that that absolutely has to be the case. What we need is a genuine democratic structure so that we can organise around those ideas openly and transparently.

Reflecting on the challenges that Your Party has faced and the possible election results, he said:

For all the demotivation that people might have, this is an incredibly important moment. And I would just plead that people - even if it's just voting - do get involved and do participate in this. Because I think what the British left looks like in 1, 5, 10, 20 years really could be quite different, depending on how this election goes.

Whatever the outcome, though, he believes there is democracy in Your Party and there will still be space for people with differing views to make their cases.

Your Party or the Greens?

Saltmarsh previously co-founded Labour for a Green New Deal. And because he believes climate politics is 'a question of justice, inequality and oppression', he thinks it's important to bring:

an environmental or climate perspective into left spaces, but also a kind of socialist politics into climate spaces

The wealthiest 10% of people in the world have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of global warming. And while richer countries do the most damage, the poorest countries suffer the most as a result of climate breakdown.

Saltmarsh isn't in the Green Party, however, because he thinks an explicitly socialist mass organisation on the left is necessary. And while the Greens are already "up and running" and have a leader in Zack Polanski who's "clearly very skilled at communicating", he said:

A cynical interpretation would be, it's like a really good Instagram account.

While asserting that communication is definitely important, he also thinks Your Party is about taking "a longer view" than just elections. Its mission, he stressed, is to:

build in communities, to organise hundreds or thousands of socialists in any given town and city, not just to win elections when that's expedient but also to coordinate campaigns, to raise consciousness, to build socialism through social infrastructure.

That means building a "collective political life" in communities, with things like:

socialist schools, where members and supporters come along and learn about socialism

And it means having a party where, from the beginning, members agree on a socialist, anti-imperialist platform.

"An incredibly important moment"

Saltmarsh isn't the only person who thinks the CEC elections are "an incredibly important moment". Because the Canary has interviewed a range of candidates who want a member-led party that breaks with top-down, personality-driven politics.

Candidates have emphasised the importance of transparency, accountability, and a collective leadership that focuses on solidarity, bringing people together, and empowering as many people as possible. This message has shone through from everyone who's spoken to us.

There absolutely have been questions surrounding accountability and transparency during the founding phase of Your Party. And whether you think this messy start was avoidable or unavoidable, countless members and candidates want that to change, and hope the CEC elections will help to overcome these challenges.

If you're a Your Party member and you want to vote:

You need to log in on the top right of the party's website.
On the Your Party Members Area page that will pop up after logging in, you will see "EVENTS" on the right hand side. Below this, you will see "VOTES AND ELECTIONS", and two options: "CEC Election - Public Office Holders" and "CEC Election - [the name of your local section of the party]".
If you click on each of those 'CEC Election' links, you'll be able to see the candidates and their statements. You then need to put a number next to all the candidates you want to support (1 being your favourite, 2 your second favourite, and so on).

Featured image via the Canary

Andrew Feinstein slams Rory Stewart's excuse for MP corruption [ 10-Feb-26 9:19pm ]

Andrew Feinstein responds to Rory Stewart

Recently, Rory Stewart argued that western politicians are "impoverished" on their lofty annual salaries of £93,904, attempting to excuse their corruption.

He ignored the generous expenses MPs claim from taxpayers, and critics have condemned what they view as a blatantly self-interested attempt to provide political cover for corruption. Since then, the Canary has spoken with Andrew Feinstein for his take on corruption in the UK government, the disgraced Mandelson, and his response to Rory Stewart.

Feinstein is a former ANC member alongside Nelson Mandela and has built his career fighting corruption linked to the global arms trade. He also challenged UK prime minister Keir Starmer in the Holborn and St Pancras constituency during the 2024 general election. His experience gives him a unique perspective on corruption.

And unsurprisingly, Feinstein was far from impressed at Rory Stewart's desperate defence.

An existential moment in human history

Recent revelations involving Mandelson and public figures connected to the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein have exposed a sprawling web of corruption among powerful men. This elite group of politicians and royal family members have used women and girls, trading them around the world to serve their nefarious, self-interested agendas. Their actions reveal a disturbing pattern of exploitation at the highest levels of power. The extent of their abuse continues to outrage the global public.

Rory Stewart's remarks compound the damage, showing disregard for the severe harms ordinary people suffer.

Here's Rory Stewart describing MPs as being on "low incomes".

Their basic annual salary is £93,904, putting them in the top 5% of earners.

There's a nuanced debate to be had about MPs' pay, but describing them as "low income" is an insult to those who really are. pic.twitter.com/2qE8fYn1sJ

— James Hanson (@jhansonradio) February 4, 2026

Andrew Feinstein — 'From the belly of the corrupted beast'

Our own Joe Glenton recently gave his take on Rory Stewart's desperate attempt to defend the indefensible, writing:

The average wage in the UK seems to be about £30,000. The mathematical geniuses among us will notice that that is…. quite a lot less than what MPs get paid.

It's almost like Roderick James Nugent "Rory" Stewart - a humble Oxford educated one-time tutor to the future king of England, former army officer, and imperial governor of a province of Iraq - hasn't got a fucking clue what he is talking about.

When we put Rory's defence of 'impoverished MPs' to Feinstein, he responded with:

So that tells you everything you need to know about Rory Stewart, whose podcast, of course, is co-hosted by a war criminal in Alastair Campbell, who enabled Tony Blair's extreme war profiteering and lied in order to get Britain into the invasion of Iraq. So I take that comment as coming from the belly of the corrupted beast.

To think that a political class, an MP, earning £94,000 a year before expenses, and as we all know, claim ridiculous expenses, is frankly an appalling insult to the vast majority of people in Britain. And if that's what he thinks is impoverishment, then he needs to get his head out of the sand or out of the fancy restaurant he spends his life in and actually understand how many people in Britain are living right now.

Because in Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell's Britain, we have more billionaires than at any time in this country's history, while more families are having to use food banks to feed themselves than at any time since the end of the Second World War. And if he thinks the solution to that is to pay our mendacious, mediocre, corrupted politicians more money, then he's even more stupid than I thought he was.

But at the same time, it's important to say that I've experienced a totally corrupted political class in apartheid South Africa. And South Africa again now, 30 odd years after our democracy, has another corrupted political class running it. But we still managed to defeat the system of apartheid. We didn't get rid of any of the economic problems. But simply by dint of the fact that we managed to defeat the apartheid state, it makes me think that enough committed people within a country around the world can bring fundamental political change.

We also asked Feinstein for his perspective on the importance of radical honesty and transparency in government. Referring to known war criminals and the recently exposed shadiness of Mandelson and co, he said:

Absolutely. I think we, just as responsible citizens, have a duty to expose the lies of our leaders, remembering that we elected them, that they exist because of the money that we pay to the state, and they're ingratiating themselves and their billionaire friends and corporate donors. And I like the idea of radical truth, because if we are truthful about our political systems, we would have to admit that they are not fit for purpose and require fundamental change.

I mean in Britain as we speak, we have someone [Mandelson] who is and has been for decades incredibly powerful and influential in our politics. Not only being close friends with a convicted pedophile and sex trafficker but actually giving information to this person that is then used in this web of influence and deceit.

And all the while, we are participating in conflict and often causing conflict around the world from which again, the same elites profit. And the corollary of that is that our own democratic space is closing so rapidly because it's the only way you can maintain such a totally corrupted system is if you reduce democracy, you reduce civil rights.

And the companies that are central to these conflicts now, the AI companies, the big tech companies, are exactly the same companies who are central to the erosion of our democracies, are central to the authoritarianism that is becoming a part of our daily lives in the US and Britain and in much of Europe. And so, by being aware of what we're doing in the rest of the world, we're also becoming aware of what is being done to us by our own leaders. We're at an existential moment in human history. And if we don't inform ourselves and challenge our political and economic elite who have become one and the same thing, we're effectively consigning our countries to despotism. So that's really the scale of the moment we're in.

The agency to decide how our world is organised

Finally, Feinstein finished with a rallying cry to voters and activists across the country:

And I think that's what we need to do. We need to realise that one of the things that the sort of late era neoliberal capitalism does is it intentionally stifles our imaginations and our creativity to make us believe there is no alternative. As Margaret Thatcher famously and evilly said, to believe that this is the only way the world can be organised. And it's not. We have the agency to decide how our world should be organised and we need to take that agency.

Referring to his upcoming book set for release in Autumn this year, he added:

And this book [Making a Killing] is an attempt to give people the information and to propose some of the ways in which we can take agency about something that is destroying our societies and our politics. And I'm always reminded when people feel very depressed and defeated, which of course I sometimes do too, I'm always reminded of what Nelson Mandela said when he was asked how he retained hope in an apartheid prison and in very dark and depressing days.

And he [Mandela] said, because anything is always impossible only until it's done.

And I think we have the ability, we have the brains amongst us ordinary people to change the world profoundly and fundamentally. And I hope that this book will be a very small contribution towards that.

Rory Stewart and his neoliberal ilk can consider themselves 'told' after this brilliant takedown from a man who makes fighting corruption his day job.

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

Lyons' scaremongering benefit fraud ad an "appalling use of funds" [ 10-Feb-26 8:33pm ]

A leading academic on social security has slammed a new anti-benefit fraud advert released by communities minister Gordon Lyons. A brief glimpse of the fear-mongering crap can be seen here. The ad features a searchlight seeking out dishonest claimants, with a dramatic voiceover declaring:

Benefit fraudsters are being identified, caught, and prosecuted.

Ciara Fitzpatrick, who is a senior lecturer in law at Ulster University (UU), specialises in the study of social security. Speaking on X, she denounced:

…a tax-payer funded ad campaign against benefit fraud despite stats released today suggesting that allegations have increased by 40% since the publication of the names of those convicted.

She asked the reasonable question of:

…why spend thousands on an ad campaign [?] In my view, it's an appalling use of funds.

Her first point is in reference to a move in 2025 by the Democratic Unionist Party's (DUP) Lyons to restart the practice of naming those convicted of benefit fraud. This coincided with Lyons ramping up rhetoric. He urged people to tout on their neighbours if they suspect wrongdoing.

Fraud panic is an attempt to distract from inequality

Of course, these moves have a clear dual ideological purpose. Firstly, publicising names of those convicted, then starting a song and dance about it, inflates the size of benefit fraud in the public imagination.

In reality it constitutes a mere 2.5% of total benefit spending. There are far fewer cases resulting in prosecution. This is a more solid indicator of actual guilt. Furthermore, this directs people away from looking at much more serious cases of defrauding the public purse. For example, tax evasion is a major issue.

Not to mention diverting people from taking a critical look at capitalism itself. Our entire economic system is one big theft scheme. It is based around bosses stealing a hefty chunk of the value workers produce every day.

Secondly, asking the average taxpayer to grass up their next door neighbour is a convenient way of undermining class solidarity. See the person beside you as a potential enemy, we're told, rather than the actual enemies faced by the vast majority. These enemies include employers who overwork and underpay us. They also include landlords who steal half our pay check, and politicians that do the bidding of both the above.

People Before Profit's (PBP) Gerry Carroll made a similar point, saying in response to Lyons:

This is a tried and tested DUP tactic; to whip up fear and suspicion in local communities and turn neighbour against neighbour, in order to distract from the party's own political failures on tackling poverty, the housing crisis and widening inequality.

Lyons made a speech in Stormont coinciding with the ad's release, and boasting about the results of his change in tack:

In an early and visible sign of my intent, last year I reintroduced the departmental practice of naming those who were found guilty in the courts. Since doing so, my department has seen anonymous fraud referrals from members of the public rise to 9,857 at the end of [Jan 2026] compared with the total year end figure of 6,353 for 2024/25. It is clear that as a result of my leadership on these issues, benefit fraud is now clearly on the public agenda.

To the annoyance, I'm sure, of some in this chamber, I will keep highlighting the issue and keep it as a priority for the department.

Lyons has been demanding an increase in the department's £16.7 million budget for tackling fraud and error in the benefits system. He claimed discussions had been ongoing with Westminster. The aim was that a portion of money recovered would be kept by Stormont. This indicates that Starmer's stingy regime is encouraging the DUP approach.

Money for increased clampdown, but not to relieve poverty

Mark Durkan of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) asked what was actually being done to help people, rather than seeking further forms of punishment. He said:

While some people do abuse the system, this system itself abuses people. Tens of thousands of genuine claimants struggle with a complex, slow and punitive system where genuine mistakes can lead to sanctions, and now sack cloth and ashes too.

How much of that £16.7 million has been spent chasing fraudsters and how much has been spent to reduce the stress and suffering caused by a system that creates errors and hardship?

A reminder that, as an example of current benefits available, Jobseeker's Allowance in the Six Counties is a pitiful £72.90 per week for those under 25, and £92.05 for those 25 or over. Despite how we are dishonestly told migrants flock to Britain for its generous benefits system, it in fact lags far behind the rest of Europe. UU's Fitzpatrick also flagged how those on benefits are facing the prospect of discretionary support being gutted. This is leaving the most desperate fully exposed.

Online, commenters contrasted the DUP's keenness to clamp down on benefits cheats with their lax approach to the massive fraud that took place under the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme. That debacle saw half a billion lost, often into the pockets of big agricultural players. The DUP ignored whistleblowers drawing attention to the money being stolen.

Nobody wants benefit fraud, but we are seeing unprecedented levels of society's wealth hoarded by the top 0.1%. Rather than a focus on reclaiming relative pennies in an already ungenerous benefits system, the emphasis should be on taking back the billions hoarded by those at the very top.

Featured image via the Canary

By Robert Freeman

Labour Right's latest military crush: Alistair Carns [ 10-Feb-26 7:43pm ]

Labour party's latest military crush — AI Carns

You'd think that Blairites would be wary of ex-military personnel. After all, Tony Blair unites most War on Terror veterans on one thing only: a deep contempt for Tony Blair. But this isn't the whole picture when it comes to Labour.

In recent days, ex-special forces soldier-turned-defence minister Alistair Carns has been touted a possible replacement for Keir Starmer. Starmer is currently hanging on to power by a thread after revelations about Peter Mandelson's friendship with serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein.

Someone has even reportedly registered a webpage for Carns' leadership bid, according to the centrist New Statesman. The paper describes Carns as a "dark horse", adding that:

Supporters believe that his background as a colonel in the Royal Marines will help Labour win back support it has lost under Starmer.

And this is the key point. It is Carns' background as a colonel in the Royal Marines that makes him a good shout. Not his commitment to democracy, or ethics in public life, or his values. He may have all of these, but Carns is appealing to some on the basis of his military credentials. That reveals something important which well-meaning socialists may miss about the nature of the Labour Party…

Labour party's military fetish

Carns' main draw is the nonsensical view that a former military man could sort out Britain's political mess.

If I even need to say it again, there is nothing about military service which guarantees someone will be a good MP. At least no more than someone being a good nurse, or binman, or, God forbid, journalist.

I mean…have we already forgotten about Johnny Mercer? And let's not forget the track record of the British military in Iraq — an abject failure and a stain on Blair and new Labour.

But weird soldier fetishism isn't new and often rears its head. I first noticed it with Labour security minister Dan Jarvis, a former Parachute Regiment officer who served in Afghanistan.

Jarvis' military credentials were routinely flaunted as if they qualified him to lead the country — even during the Corbyn days. And almost always by people, including journalists, who'd never worn a uniform.

Now there are all kinds of explanations for this. I enjoy the lowbrow ones. For example, Blairites are basically fantasist dweebs who read too many Andy McNab books. Or perhaps the authoritarian nature of the military appeals to their own Stalinist leanings. Or it could be a residual sense of our own imperial history that makes some yearn for the power and status which accompanied those times.

These might all be true in part. But I also think that soldier-worshipping holds up a mirror to the Labour Party. It reminds me of a passage in Richard Seymour's book 'Corbyn: The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics' (2016).

Seymour asked, at a time when Labour's future was being fought over, if the Labour Party is Marxist (we can laugh now)? Or is it, as Tony Blair said at the time, built on some sort of dusty English Methodism.

Seymour's answer is that it was neither:

What seems to have more enduring significance for the distinctive shape and trajectory of the Labour Party is its origins in Victorian Liberalism.

This offers a far better explanation of why the party is so in love with militarism and war. It's because the party is still operating on Windows 1870.

Seymour goes on:

In fact, whatever else changed about the Labour Party in this era, one of its abiding attributes was to be the priority it accorded to the interests of the 'nation', and the deference it accorded to extant constitutional arrangements and military commitments.

He adds that:

Those Labour MPs who, today, find simply unthinkable the break-up of the United Kingdom, the repudiation of Trident, and the end of the 'special relationship' with the United States, are in fact authentic legatees of their party's traditions.

The truth is, Starmer and his allies, are right in their assessment that the Labour Party — a militarist party of capital and empire — is theirs by right. And with this in mind, why wouldn't centrists get excited about Carns as a candidate?

While it might seem a little out of date, that book is worth picking up ten years on. Because it leaves you in no doubt that the Labour Party was never ours to begin with. And, in all honesty, given it is wedded to empire to the degree that it is, why the hell would you even want it anyway?

Featured image via the Canary

Ex-Tory housing minister blames house prices on TORIES [ 10-Feb-26 6:45pm ]

Tories blamed for housing crisis, by Tory-defector

Robert Jenrick has blamed the Tories for extortionate house prices, despite being a former Tory Housing Secretary who only recently defected to Reform.

The two old parties made housing unaffordable.

Reform is now the home for aspirational young people.

Simon has the real world experience to break the cycle of broken promises. https://t.co/bETQLedo3k

— Robert Jenrick (@RobertJenrick) February 9, 2026

Jenrick served as Housing Secretary for over two years during the previous Conservative government. And his track record as a Tory minister cannot be ignored.

During that time, he fast-tracked a £1bn development for a porn baron.

Oh dear Bobbie Boy.

You were a literal housing minister for two years under the Tories. You remember them?

One of the 'two old parties'.

Remember? You fast tracked a £1 Billion development for a porn baron. https://t.co/kDI1LltnKm

— Don McGowan (@donmcgowan) February 9, 2026

He also came under fire over the allocation of the £3.6bn Towns Fund. The Public Accounts Committee ruled that this was "not impartial". The fund was set up to help financially challenged towns, but a panel found it was heavily skewed towards Tory constituencies. Jenrick's own received £25m in funding.

Useless bastard who failed miserably in a disgraceful government, switched parties and says 'vote for me' because he fucked up so badly in his previous job.

Utter cunt. He thinks we're fucking stupid. https://t.co/pkFkqmmDPT

— Lord Monsieur Prepuce

Broadband social tariffs - how you can save £220 a year [ 10-Feb-26 6:09pm ]

A woman working at a laptop with a broadband router in the foreground

4.8 million UK broadband customers are missing out on £1.05bn of savings. This is the finding of analysis by comparison site Broadband Genie.

Broadband social tariffs are available to 5.3 million households. You can apply for one if you receive benefits or Universal Credit. Currently however, only a fraction (10%) of eligible households take up a social tariff.

A broadband social tariff costs less than a regular deal. Eligible customers can sign up for as little as £10 a month, significantly less over a 12-month period than a regular broadband plan. Broadband Genie's analysis estimates that eligible households would save £220 a year by switching to a social tariff.

What is a broadband social tariff?

A broadband social tariff is a broadband contract available to people on benefits and Universal Credit. You receive the same level of service as any other customer, but at a lower monthly cost. Eligible customers can switch to a social tariff at any time, won't incur any mid-contract price rises, and will not have to pay any setup or exit fees.

Purpl is a platform that finds discounts for disabled people and people living with long-term health conditions. Founder Georgina Colman highlighted the need to raise awareness of available support and the risks disabled consumers face if broadband becomes unaffordable:

This is a cost-of-living scandal hiding in plain sight. Millions of people on low incomes, including disabled people and those on Universal Credit, are overpaying for broadband simply because they don't know help exists.

Broadband is an essential service, and when households could be saving around £220 a year, the lack of awareness around social tariffs is letting people down. Providers need to do far more to actively tell customers what they're entitled to.

If broadband becomes unaffordable, disabled people don't just lose an internet connection, they lose a vital lifeline. For many, it's how they stay in touch with family, access support, manage their health and avoid isolation.

Disabled people are already more likely to experience loneliness, and pricing them out of broadband risks cutting them off from the world at a time when digital access is no longer optional.

How to sign up to a social tariff

Do you qualify for a social tariff? Eligibility criteria vary between providers, but social tariffs are generally available to low-income households and those receiving benefits such as Universal Credit, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Disability Living Allowance.
Compare the tariffs available to you. If your current provider doesn't offer a social tariff, or you don't meet their criteria, you may wish to explore other options. If you explain your circumstances, your provider might let you leave your current contract without paying a penalty fee. Ofcom and trusted comparison sites publish information on the broadband tariffs available.
Apply with the provider. To apply, you'll usually need to provide your contact details, National Insurance number, and proof of benefits. Once submitted, your provider will verify your eligibility with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). This process is typically quick and can sometimes be completed instantly.
Switching and installation. If you're switching to a new provider, the One Touch Switch process means your new provider will handle all the stress of cancelling your existing contract and activating your new connection.
I'm not eligible for a social tariff, or my application was rejected. If your application was rejected, double-check the eligibility criteria. If you can't get a broadband social tariff, 8.8 million bill payers are out of contract and are free to switch to something cheaper.

Alex Tofts from Broadband Genie said:

While take-up of broadband social tariffs is moving in the right direction, progress is slow. Only a fraction of eligible households are signed up to a social tariff.

We encourage anyone who thinks they're eligible for a social tariff to apply online or to contact their provider.

Awareness of these tariffs is a huge challenge, and providers need to play their part in making these products known to consumers. We found less than half of providers mention their social tariff on their website homepage. Offering social tariffs is voluntary for providers, and integrating them into a sustainable business model can be challenging. As a result, many providers invest little in promoting these packages.

If you're not eligible for a social tariff, 8.8 million bill payers are out of contract and can switch or renew their deal to lower their monthly outgoings.

Featured image via the Canary

Polanksi delivers single-word take down of Starmer's broken mandate [ 10-Feb-26 6:04pm ]

Starmer betrays Labour's electoral mandate

On social media, Green party leader Zack Polanski used a single word to tear apart Keir Starmer's 'I'm not resigning because I'm noble' shtick.

Polanski: "Mandates…"

Mandates…. https://t.co/GaJxZPf8xL pic.twitter.com/rNZeUQBubE— Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) February 10, 2026

Indeed, Starmer was elected Labour leader on a mandate to carry out policies that party members support. But as soon as Starmer became Labour leader he gradually ditched every single one of those pledges — as Polanski highlighted.

Starmer tore up his mandate

On the pledge sheet sent to Labour members, Starmer promised raising income tax on the top 5% of earners. But in September 2023, the MP for Holborn and St Pancras walked that back, stating there would be no increase. It was a lie and Polanski is right to point this out.

He also pledged "support[ing] the abolition of tuition fees". Instead, Labour has raised tuition fees by £285 — another lie. This should reduce Starmer's mandate to tatters and he should be recalled for another election.

It's increasingly clear that words mean very little to Starmer. He also promised that he would "put the Green New Deal at the heart of everything we do".

And yet again, in February 2024, the Labour leader dropped a £28bn per year commitment to green energy. And in government, he's propping up fossil fuel firms with £22bn for carbon capture projects that don't even work.

Another pledge from Starmer was "no more illegal wars" and to:

"put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.

But the Labour government has provided diplomatic cover, arms, and logistic support for Israel's genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. So that's another lie.

Starmer also claimed that "public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water."

But in similar form, he dropped plans to re-nationalise energy, mail and water. On rail, Labour is only nationalising the services, not the actual trains themselves. We will still rent those from rolling stock companies.

Another betrayed pledge was to "defend free movement as we leave the EU". But in November 2022, he reversed his position. He branded free movement a "red-line" that "won't come back under my government".

Under another, Starmer expressed his commitment to working:

shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people.

But then he demanded that his shadow cabinet do not join picket lines.

Resign

With these broken pledges in mind, the lies are stacking up, and Starmer should have resigned long ago.

In the UK, manifestos and commitments are treated as a joke — a means used by politicians to slide into power. Given the current state of UK politics, the public has grown attuned to these lies, but we must hold the elite to account and demand better — for all!

Featured image via the Canary

By James Wright

RMT Action Against Assaults campaign at Scottish parliament calls for new law [ 10-Feb-26 5:02pm ]

The RMT is demanding a new law to safeguard transport workers in Scotland against a sharp rise in assaults. This comes ahead of a meeting with MSPs in Holyrood.

Action Against Assaults

The union will hold the 'Action Against Assaults' event at the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday 11 February at 1pm.

This event will bring together:

The cabinet secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance MSP.
MSPs from across the chamber.
The British Transport Police.
Rail and passenger ferry operators.
Passenger organisations.

RMT general secretary Eddie Dempsey will set out the union's demand for the creation of a standalone offence of assaulting or abusing a public transport worker at work. This is similar to protections already in place for retail staff and emergency service workers.

The union is calling on all political parties contesting the Scottish Parliament elections in May 2026 to commit in their manifestos to introducing such legislation if elected.

Dempsey said:

No worker should go to their job fearing they will be assaulted, abused or threatened simply for doing their job.

But that is the daily reality for far too many public transport workers.

Seventy per cent of rail workers have faced violence in the past year and nearly half of our ferry members say the threat of violence is harming their mental health. That is a scandal which demands action.

We welcome the engagement from the Scottish Government to date and the meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, but warm words must now become law.

Retail and emergency service workers rightly have specific legal protection and we want the same for public transport workers too.

As we approach the 2026 Scottish Parliament elections, every party must commit to creating a standalone offence of assaulting or abusing a public transport worker.

An RMT survey found that 70% of rail workers in Scotland experienced workplace violence in the past year. 80% believed violence had increased over the same period. The survey identified lone working as a major risk factor. Nearly 60 per cent of those who experienced assaults said they were working alone at the time.

The union also highlighted Scottish government research from 2023 which found that women and girls feel significantly safer on public transport when staff are present. This applies at stations, in ticket offices and onboard trains.

Nearly half of RMT passenger ferry members reported that the threat of violence at work has negatively affected their mental health.

In 2022, the Scottish government confirmed it was exploring the creation of a standalone offence.

Since then, a working group involving rail unions has been convened to consider enforcement measures. The cabinet secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop MSP, told parliament that stronger legal protections were under consideration and that the government was taking the matter "extremely seriously".

Featured image via the Canary

TSSA rail union ignores own rules to disenfranchise pensioner members [ 10-Feb-26 4:58pm ]

The Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA) rail union boss Maryam Eslamdoust has been accused of continuing her war on her own staff, members, and democracy after the union broke its own rules to cut retired union members out of its structures and conference votes.

Eslamdoust is despised by TSSA members and staff, who accuse her of bullying, victimisation of staff and representatives, and of anti-union tactics when they organise against her. Branches have voted overwhelmingly for motions of no confidence in her. Reps in the union's biggest branch, Network Rail voted unanimously last month for her removal - just the latest in a string of no-confidence votes after repeated anti-union attacks on staff and the GMB union that represents them at work.

Eslamdoust even went repeatedly to the Guardian to attack the GMB - and then de-recognised it as the staff's workplace union. Eslamdoust demanded the GMB prioritise her feelings over their members' needs.

The years-long scandal has included attacks on TSSA's internal democracy. She and her team have twice annulled elections in which members had voted her rivals into the key positions of treasurer and president. And on the same day as the latest unanimous vote against her, TSSA declared her ally as the new, uncontested treasurer after again suspending the candidate who beat her. Eslamdoust and her supporters also wrecked the union's conference to prevent another no-confidence vote.

TSSA further splinters

Now, they have staged another attack on the voting rights of members - by unilaterally closing all but one of the union's retired branches.

Eslamdoust has moved all TSSA's retired members from their existing branches into a single branch for the whole UK. The immediate effect of this imposed decision is to reduce the five delegates that the five previous branches could send to the union's conference down to a single delegate. It also cuts the number of motions they can bring from ten to just two. It has been done without any conference vote or approval by the union's various divisional councils and the officers holding roles in the original branches have been summarily removed from their positions.

The move is in breach of the TSSA rulebook and was imposed without warning at a weekend, preventing any opportunity to oppose it before it was a done deal.

Former TSSA assistant general secretary Steve Coe has been expelled from the union for blowing the whistle on the actions of Eslamdoust and her cronies. He posted to his personal social media about the latest assault on democracy that:

I hear that the TSSA Executive Committee has once again decided to ignore the union conference policy, and rig Rule Book and Annual Conference. And apparently discrimination on grounds of age is ok with the leadership!!

A retired member quickly responded to confirm the impact:

My branch has been dissolved deleted destroyed which ever you prefer fact no longer on the website!

Steve Coe's Facebook post.

Eslamdoust claims she is being criticised by staff and members because she is female.

TSSA has not responded to a Skwawkbox media enquiry since 2024.

Featured image via the Canary

What did Streeting think would happen if he revealed his messages with Mandelson? [ 10-Feb-26 4:44pm ]

Health secretary and all round wrong 'un Wes Streeting has revealed his messages with disgraced paedophile's mate Peter Mandelson. Or at least some of them. It was a huge self-own and more revealing than he may have wished.

Streeting may have been hoping that openness would rescue his ambitions to replace his boss when he is (soon) forced out. However, the resulting disgust and mockery have surely put a final nail in the coffin of that nightmare scenario.

Not least because Streeting's Mandelson association is just the latest such link.

Streeting was asked by Sky's Beth Rigby about his messages. It was short and may well have been an exercise intended to neuter the impact of them. But it was still grim:

https://www.thecanary.co/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/tRLvhMaeaxJ8yu-F1.mp4 Streeting might as well have said 'I am toast at the next election'

However, a look at some detail of the messages reveals not just how chummy the health secretary and Mandelson were, but how terrified Streeting is after almost losing his seat in 2024, as PoliticsUK pointed out in an X post. It exposes Streeting's own low opinion of his own party. And it proves that Streeting continued to support Starmer despite having lost faith, and deny that Israel is committing genocide, despite knowing otherwise (emphases added):

[28/03/2025, 11:36:06] Wes Streeting: I fear we're in big trouble here - and I am toast at the next election. We just lost our safest ward in Redbridge (51% Muslim, Ilford S) to a Gaza independent. At this rate I don't think we'll hold either of the two Ilford seats.

[28/03/2025, 11:39:54] Wes Streeting: There isn't a clear answer to the question: why Labour?

[28/03/2025, 11:48:44] Lord Mandelson: The government doesn't have an economic philosophy which is then followed through in a programme of policies.

[28/03/2025, 11:49:15] Wes Streeting: No growth strategy at all

"Israel is committing war crimes"

[24/07/2025, 23:00:29] Wes Streeting: Am sure this will come up in coming days, so wanted to check in with you on recognition of Palestine and the domestic politics of it.

Keir's statement today was excellent, but Macron's statement tonight ups the ante.

Morally and politically, I think we need to join France.

Morally, because Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes. Their government talks the language of ethnic cleansing and I have met with our own medics out there who describe the most chilling and distressing scenes of calculated brutality against women and children.

Politically, a Commons vote will be engineered in September on recognition and we will lose it if we're not ahead of it. There are no circumstances in which people like me or Shabana could abstain or vote against, for example. Conference will be a sea of Palestinian flags and the moderates will be waving them.

We need to be leading the charge on this. The alternative is being dragged there with enormous damage to Keir, the govt and the party.

I've never been a shrinking violent on Israel. I've supported LFI for over 20 years. Our sister party, Haaretz, and progressives are clear about what's being done in their name and they oppose it.

I appreciate these things are always more complicated than they appear to those of us who aren't up close as you are and I also appreciate how much Keir and David are giving to this personally.

But it is what it is. We need to lead, not follow.

[24/07/2025, 23:11:47] Lord Mandelson: I can see all this but I am worried that such a gesture now could blow a 2 SS out of the water if Israel decided that unilateral recognition justified further WB annexation which the US would be powerless to stop or reverse. That would be the end of it.

So I think we need to employ practical means to get a 2SS, not quickly I grant but realistically [written by Mandelson after almost two years of Israel's genocide in Gaza]. The PA with reform and new leadership can advance this with Arab/US/European support. The alternative is a further deadlocked death spiral on an even greater scale than now.

[24/07/2025, 23:12:10] Wes Streeting: Israel is doing it anyway.

[24/07/2025, 23:12:39] Wes Streeting: This is rogue state behaviour. Let them pay the price as pariahs with sanctions applied to the state, not just a few ministers.

But Mandelson is far from unique in Streeting's circle. His former office manager Sam Gould was convicted of child sex offences. One of his closest associates and now fellow MP Jas Athwal was accused of "serious" sexual assault, and the allegations remain murky. Streeting's colleague Ivor Caplin was arrested in January 2025 in a paedophile sting. His other colleague Conor McGinn has just been charged with sex offences.

At what point does a coincidence become a pattern - one that releasing a few direct messages can't mask?

As the @solutionsilford X account commented:

Wes Streeting "never knew" about Conor McGinn. Never knew about Ivor Caplin. Never knew about Ivan Lewis. Never knew about Sam Gould. Never knew about Peter Mandelson. Either the most incurious man in Labour… or taking the public for fools.

Featured image via the Canary

Australian police break spine of anti-genocide granny to protect war criminal [ 10-Feb-26 4:30pm ]

Earlier, Skwawkbox reported on Australian police officers' vicious beating of a restrained and helpless anti-genocide protester. The beating came as police attacked protesters demonstrating peacefully against a visit by war-criminal Israeli president Isaac Herzog.

The attack was not an isolated incident. In yet another assault, police fractured the spine of 69-year-old Jann Alhafny. The Australian government has given police immunity from legal consequences.

Describing the incident, Alhafny said that an officer had pushed her "very violently" to the ground "without warning" as she protested in Sydney - but worse was to come:

I knew straight away I'd hurt my back [but the officer] grabbed one arm and he yanked me up onto my feet, like really severely, and that was excruciating.

Moving someone who has suffered a spinal injury at all, let alone "really severely", can result in permanent paralysis or even death. Doctors later found that Alhafny had four fractured vertebrae. New South Wales Police denied any knowledge.

But police knew they were able to act with impunity. NSW authorities had designated the area a "major event", giving police and the state immunity from 'tortious acts' that cause injury. It appears that state enforcers made full use of this immunity: the march of around 30,000 was kettled and pepper sprayed as well as being beaten.

Alhafny, whose late husband was Palestinian, said she and her daughter would not be deterred from anti-genocide protests:

We always go to the protest, my daughter and I, and it's just the right thing to do. Even if my husband wasn't Palestinian, I'd still be supporting Palestine.

Featured image via the Canary

Trump tries to wreck Mexico-Cuba alliance in bid for hemispheric control [ 10-Feb-26 4:11pm ]

US president Donald Trump is determined to starve Cuba of oil in his bid for control of the Western hemisphere. Cuba buys oil from Mexico despite heavy US sanctions. Now Trump is threatening to hit Mexico with tariffs.

Trump has also been channeling a mix of Cold War and War on Terror rhetoric to justify himself. He's accused Cuba of hosting Russian spies AND Hamas and Hezbollah agents. Any one will do, right?

Trump increasing belligerence

The New York Times reported that although Trump did not name the US's southern neighbour:

The threat seemed to be directed at Mexico, one of the few countries still delivering oil to Cuba. Earlier this month, he even said that he had specifically asked President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico to cut off its supply.

Mexico is a key regional ally of the Cuban government:

Mexico and Cuba's long alliance — rooted in economic and cultural cooperation and a shared wariness of U.S. intervention — survived and even deepened after the Cuban Revolution, when Mexico preserved ties with Havana even as much of the region aligned with Washington.

And Mexico has been juggling the alliance amid Trump's increased belligerence. No oil has been sent since January, but the Mexican navy delivered humanitarian aid. Sheinbaum told reporters on 9 February:

No one can ignore the situation that the Cuban people are currently experiencing because of the sanctions that the United States is imposing in a very unfair manner.

Trump has threatened to hit targets in Mexico under the guise of his pseudo-war on drugs. This is the same rationale he has used to airstrike small boats in the Caribbean and Pacific since September 2025. And the same rationale he used to kidnap Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro on 3 January 2026. Anti-communism

Trump is no more a fan of having a 'communist' nation close by than any other US leader. But his Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a son of Cuban refugees, is even more neurotically anti-Cuba.

The Cuban ambassador to the UN Ernesto Soberón Guzmán laid into Rubio in a Newsweek interview on 7 February:

What is clear to me is that Rubio has never come to Cuba, and he's talking about something he knows nothing about.

He said Rubio's position was contradictory because of how own family had fled the pre-Castro US-backed regime:

His parents came to the United States before the revolution. It's false this image people have that they came to the United States running away from the revolution.

They came to the United States fleeing the dictatorship that existed in Cuba, which was supported by the U.S. government at the time, under [then Cuban President Fulgencio] Batista.

Guzman suspected Cuba lived rent-free in Rubio's head:

Whether it's harmful or not, whether it's clinically harmful or not, whether it's clinically proven, that's something you have to find out as a journalist.

But there is a also bigger geopolitical picture beyond the contents of Rubio's brain.

The bigger picture

Oil politics and the personal obsessions of Trump's goons clearly play a part in the current situation. It's also important to recall Cuba was effectively the first colony in what would become the US's global empire. And US policy now has reverted in some ways to the gunboat diplomacy of an era which saw the US attack Cuba, the Philippines, and China in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Trump's National Security Strategy (NSS) demands control of the hemisphere. In some ways, this is a return to the old Monroe Doctrine which helped drive US empire building in the first place.

The NSS asserts:

The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity—a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region.

For the US, is it 'our way or the highway' on the American continent. Or rather: our way or you'll be starved, shot, drone-struck, and/or kidnapped into submission.

Accusations about foreign influence in Cuba echo the NSS precisely:

Some foreign influence will be hard to reverse, given the political alignments between certain Latin American governments and certain foreign actors.

And at the heart of US strategy, as ever, are the demands of the American market:

The choice all countries should face is whether they want to live in an American-led world of sovereign countries and free economies or in a parallel one in which they are influenced by countries on the other side of the world.

The Trump administration is driven by greed, ego, and a yearning for hegemony. This isn't so different from its predecessors, Trump and his lackeys are just more open about it. What is different is that the US empire's decline is rapidly turning into a freefall. And a wounded beast is a dangerous thing, as Cubans and Mexicans are well aware.

Featured image via the Canary

Palantir celebrate worming their way into British politics with party at Ministry of Defence [ 10-Feb-26 3:57pm ]

Military tech firm Palantir are hosting a lavish party at the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to celebrate their massive new contract. The firm's founders, who have expressed far-right and anti-democratic views, seemed pleased at having penetrated the highest echelons of the British state. And their takeover has disgraced Labour politician Peter Mandelson's fingerprints all over it.

In a bizarre twist, the head of MI5 just warned about Chinese infiltration of British universities. But not a word was uttered about how a CIA-linked, Trump-aligned military data firm has penetrated British military and health infrastructure.

The Times reported on 10 February 2026:

Senior military officers and civil servants have been invited to the evening reception in Mayfair on Wednesday to mark the company's £241 million three-year deal to "boost military AI and innovation".

As well as UK military contracts, Palantir has also penetrated the National Health Service (NHS). And both the Labour and the previous Conservative government have gladly invited them in.

An invitation seen by The Times said:

Join us for an evening reception as we reflect on our decade-long support of the armed forces, thank those who have been part of the journey and look towards an ever more ambitious new chapter — one that will deliver cutting-edge data and AI capabilities to UK defence, establish London as our European defence headquarters, and see investment in British innovation, jobs and national security.

Other military and arms firms like Babcock will also demonstrate their wares at the event.

Palantir have a Mandelson link

Disgraced peer Peter Mandelson was a key architect of the deal. The Guardian described the situation succinctly:

Palantir, a $300bn company that provides military technology to the Israel Defense Forces and AI-powered deportation targeting for Donald Trump's ICE units, has UK government contracts worth more than £500m. Global Counsel, a lobbying company Mandelson co-founded and part-owns, also works for Palantir.

UK PM Keir Starmer, who is hanging on by a thread over allegations he knew about Mandelson's links to Epstein before making him US ambassador, visited Palantir HQ in February 2025. That meeting was allegedly brokered by Mandelson:

But there is no formal record of what was said. The Foreign Office says it holds no emails confirming the arrangements.

Defence secretary John Healey has defended the £240m deal. Palantir has up to £500m in UK contracts overall:

Peter Mandelson has no influence on any MoD contracts. The Palantir decision was mine.

Adding:

Palantir offer unique capabilities with a unique track record and that's why we've struck the agreement with them.

Foreign office minister Stephen Doughty said:

Officials from our embassy in Washington arranged this trip in the normal way.

But Tory shadow cabinet minister Alex Burghart said the visit:

did not appear in the prime minister's register of visits and came to light later in subsequent disclosures.

The Times reported:

Palantir was and still is a client of Global Counsel, the lobbying firm that Mandelson co-founded. His shares are in the process of being divested and Mandelson would not have financially benefitted from the deal, it is understood.

Thiel and Karp

Alex Karp and Peter Thiel are the most prominent figures at Palantir. Both Karp and Thiel are linked to Donald Trump. Their politics are openly far-right. And now they have access to great swathes of the British state, including defence and health. In a bizarre twist, Palantir's UK chief is Louis Mosley - grandson of British fascist leader Oswald Mosley.

As Action on Armed Violence's Iain Overton warned on April 2025:

But make no mistake: Palantir is no neutral software vendor. It is the digital vanguard of a globalised military-industrial complex that sees citizens not as people to be protected, but as data points to be mapped, managed — and monetised. It's own tag line (according to a series of posters recently put up in University campuses) is "We build to dominate."

And let's be clear, this is no mere tech firm. Palantir is another example of the imperial boomerang, born out of the War on Terror and the CIA:

Palantir grew rich off the back of the post-9/11 security state, with seed funding from the CIA's venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel. It developed its tools in tandem with US intelligence, border enforcement, and drone warfare programmes.

Overton added:

It helped track "terrorists" abroad, surveil migrants at home, and model crime in cities riddled by systemic inequality.

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has railed against Palantir's role in the NHS:

And advocacy group, the Citizens, is currently lobbying for a full debate on Palantir's UK contracts:

Despite the company's deep embedding in government systems, there has been no comprehensive scrutiny of costs, data governance, ethical risks or national sovereignty.

They also warned:

Internationally, Palantir has been linked to controversial immigration enforcement in the US, criticised for its role in military operations in Gaza, and rejected by authorities in Switzerland over data and dependency concerns.

The British government, shaky as it is, seems absolutely determined to keep Palantir onboard. The situation is frankly bizarre. For example, the head of MI5 has just issued a warning that Chinese intelligence is trying to infiltrate British universities. Ken McCallum also announced a £3m round of measures to secure UK educational institutions. Yet Palantir, a foreign firm with deep links to the intelligence agencies of the current crackpot US regime, has taken over parts of the UK's critical defence infrastructure and services - and been paid handsomely for the pleasure.

Featured image via the Canary

Re-emerged video shows Kid Rock was always a raging nonce [ 10-Feb-26 3:34pm ]

Urgh, I already hated Kid Rock, because he's always seemed like a greasy nonce. Now, a newly resurfaced clip seems to confirm it:

BREAKING: Disturbing video of Kid Rock has resurfaced, as he wonders why American men were waiting for the then-14 year old Olsen twins to turn 18. "if there's grass on the field, play ball!"

That's who MAGA supports. https://t.co/qrEJw40Spr

— Really American

Reform threaten to defund university over debate club snub [ 10-Feb-26 3:31pm ]

Lee Anderson in front of Bangor University, Reform

Once again, Reform have publicly shit the bed, and this time it's over Bangor University. Well, more specifically, the Bangor Debating and Political society, but that didn't stop Reform's head of policy Zia Yusuf threatening the whole fucking uni:

Bangor University have banned Reform and called us "racist, transphobic and homophobic".

Bangor receives £30 million in state funding a year, much of which comes from Reform-voting taxpayers.

I am sure they won't mind losing every penny of that state funding under a Reform… pic.twitter.com/piUPlBzEcY

— Zia Yusuf (@ZiaYusufUK) February 9, 2026

Very normal behaviour there, Yusuf.

Well done Bangor, you've pissed off Reform

Personally, I would like to say well done to the debate society. But members of Reform massively shit the bed over it, including wannabe councillor Nick Pritchard:

The only issue I have with Pritchard kicking off is why in the name of hell does anyone care about the opinion of a man who "fabricated allegations" about a local resident trying to procure someone to shoot him?

Pritchard, mate, you're in no position to debate anyone.

And of course Richard Tice spat his dummy out about it:

Simple

In line with our values, if Bangor Uni does not believe in free speech, then British taxpayers should not have to fund them.

Perhaps remove all government funding and no student loans for Bangor students

The phone will ring very soon https://t.co/3ZmtmbXea8

— Richard Tice MP

Far right women are cosplaying as a racist AI child [ 10-Feb-26 3:26pm ]

Okay, I am sick of writing about this 'Amelia' AI schoolgirl now. But yet again, it appears a far-right group has adopted this fake child as some kind of mascot.

Although this time, it's a group of women. Odd.

We're fed up of the safety of women and girls being sacrificed for the comfort of migrant men.

WE ARE ALL AMELIA! The movement has just begun. pic.twitter.com/p7QtuPtLVy

— Women's Safety Initiative (@WomenSafety_UK) February 7, 2026

Why are you cosplaying as a literal schoolgirl?

You see, the issue I have with the far right using Amelia as some kind of mascot is where this avatar came from.

Amelia is a purple haired goth girl, and she wasn't born in some racist WhatsApp group. She was created by the government to be a part of a video game called Pathways which taught kids about extremism.

Oh, and she's a fucking college-aged child. 16 to 18 years old. Yet the amount of knuckle-draggers on the internet sexualising her is absolutely disgusting:

Amelia's emergence over the last week was explosive, injecting a sexually charged, romantic energy into British nationalism. AI image generation enables ownerless memetic characters to be collaboratively generated faster than ever before. Amelia was the first to step through this… pic.twitter.com/NAbBxERJOw

— John Carter (@martianwyrdlord) January 17, 2026

#Amelia #ai pic.twitter.com/yJeFEizMXU

— ASHURA (@Ashura_GG) February 2, 2026

She's meant to be a fucking child. Yet here we see the Women's Safety Initiative cosplaying as her and drinking a pint.

Come on girls, do better. When you put yourself under a banner of protect all women, surely you shouldn't be masquerading as a fucking child whilst doing so?

Let's look a little deeper at who is in that video

On closer inspection, you can see the founder and director of Women's Safety Initiative, Jess Gill, right there in the video. And she loved it:

"Anon, why didn't I see you at the mass deportation protest?" https://t.co/j9QjnYEwUA pic.twitter.com/W2wV53Y2k3

— Jess (@jessgill03) February 7, 2026

Bit weird.

Jess, who claims to be British but hates everything about British food, has become a polarising figure at demonstrations. I mean, surely if you're going to attend a demo to 'protect our women' with the racist Pink Ladies, you wouldn't be happy to share a space with ex-Reform MP and known wife beater James McMurdoch?

Well done to the Pink Ladies in Chelmsford today.

This brave lot are standing up for the safety of women and girls. The shame of course is that they shouldn't be having to do this at all.

"I'm not far right. I'm worried about my kids" pic.twitter.com/8ZlhHk1eTk

— James McMurdock MP (@JMcMurdockMP) November 22, 2025

Now you're cosplaying as an underage teen girl and quaffing pints?

Using women's rights for political clout

As a woman, I am absolutely sick to fucking death of the far right using women's safety as a weapon.

I don't get it guys. When 97% of rape claims have not even been brought to charge, why are these women playing dress up as a kid? And a goth kid at that? I thought you hated bright coloured hair?

Can we stop dressing up as heavily sexualised kids as some kind of icon and actually focus on the absolute state of policing? Rape is borderline legal in the UK now when you look at conviction rates, and it pisses me off that these far right women don't actually give a fuck. The only time they care about women is when they're whipping up hatred against migrants.

Using attacks against women to hide your racism is fucking disgusting.

Featured image via X

By Antifabot

Raging hypocrite Farage goes after 'work from home' [ 10-Feb-26 3:18pm ]

Nigel Farage is going after work-from-home, in a hypocritical attempt to make it look like he's ever worked a day in his life.

Reform grifters charging candidates £250 to stand as MP [ 10-Feb-26 2:32pm ]

Reform UK are charging prospective parliamentary candidates £250 to stand in upcoming elections.

Talk about pricing working-class people out of politics.

Reform are charging people £250 to apply to be a Parliamentary candidate. https://t.co/qbVAE9WZjF pic.twitter.com/yf3IvotzCf

— Evolve Politics (@evolvepolitics) February 9, 2026

Previously, the party charged £125 to apply to stand in Gorton and Denton. This was despite the party having zero intention of actually selecting them.

Why if Reform are hoping to persuade a 'big name candidate' to run in the by election have they asked members to pay £125 to apply when they have no intention of selecting them or giving them a fair shot?

It's shameless money making off the backs of working class members pic.twitter.com/lDXfuLgUaF

— Sophie Corcoran (@sophielouisecc) January 25, 2026

Other political parties in the UK don't do this. What's making this situation worse is that Reform UK has the largest paid membership in the country, and is balls-deep in donations from dodgy donors.

Reform: grifters be grifting

Farage is a grifter - he always has been. Whether it's selling crappy football shirts to try and raise a few quid, or outpricing working people from politics - his nerve has no end.

It's just one big grift. https://t.co/ExXUjg5wIe

— Alwyn Maynard (@AlwynMaynard) February 10, 2026

"But don't worry were for the average person" you just have to have a pile of cash to play in the first place. https://t.co/iUDToEvmaV

— viper (@vipersssssssss) February 10, 2026

Making the rich (ahem, Farage) even richer, whilst raising council tax and shafting the rest of us.

making the rich richer while they do absolutely fuck all for you. https://t.co/Wvn0EShazg

— kieran

Claudia Webbe accuses Your Party group of 'weaponising Black struggle' [ 10-Feb-26 2:25pm ]

Claudia Webbe in front of Your Party conference image

Claudia Webbe is an ally of Jeremy Corbyn and a former Labour MP. On 9 February, she criticised a Your Party (YP) group said to represent Black members. The group in question is the Your Party Black Network (YPBN):

Black members helped build Your Party.

We're reclaiming our narrative from @YPBlackNetwork. Your theft of our identity ends here. Your weaponisation of Black struggle ends here. You do not speak for us.

We are shutting this down. See our statement here

Charles gets heckled by crowd over his paedophile associate brother [ 10-Feb-26 2:20pm ]

Charles Windsor has again been heckled over his brother Andrew and serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein. The monarch was on a visit to Clitheroe in Lancashire and ignored questions before clambering into his car. He faced a similar crowd response last week in an Essex village and before that in the Scottish town of Stirling.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has again been in the headlines after more images of him appeared in the latest Epstein files release. The new images show him looking creepily up at the camera as he looms over a prone, redacted, presumably young girl. Other files show him sending Epstein 'confidential' information about 'investment opportunities'. Others reveal Epstein flying a woman to the UK for him and that he and Epstein asked a stripper for a threesome at Epstein's home.

One heckler in Clitheroe demanded to know whether Charles has "pressurised the police to start investigating Andrew?"

A palace spokesman has since said that the parasite king will "support police" in inquiries.

Featured image via the Canary

UCU boss Grady faces hearing over claims she used union resources to rig election [ 10-Feb-26 1:46pm ]

The boss of one of the UK's biggest education unions - the University and College Union (UCU) - faces a hearing by statutory regulator the Certification Officer.

Whistleblowers have given evidence that Jo Grady used union resources, staff, and software to rig her own re-election. Grady won the March 2024 election by just 182 votes out of 114,310 members - 0.157% - on a 15.1% turnout. UCU union blocked any recount and would not allow candidates to attend the count.

UCU allegations

Two other 2024 candidates, Vicky Blake (Leeds) and Prof Ewan McGaughey (King's College London), have asked the Certification Officer (CO) to order a re-run of the election. They say that O'Grady breached breached union rules and should be ordered to step down. The hearing takes place today, 10 February 2026.

UCU rules on the election of officers, executive members, and trustees expressly prohibited the use of union resources for campaigning. This includes staff, social media and email lists:

However, UCU whistleblowers came forward to the applicants with evidence that the rules had been broken. Certification Officer Stephen Hardy will review the evidence today.

Key complaints include that:

Grady instructed UCU's senior management WhatsApp group that "every single decision we make/thing we do has to be seen through the… lens… [of] Re-elect GS [general secretary]".
Grady said she would "destroy" people in the union who opposed her.
According to witnesses, staff were repeatedly told by Grady and senior managers that their work should focus on re-electing her and that jobs were at risk if she lost. In her initial witness statement to the Certification Officer, - before WhatsApp screenshots came to light - Grady "vehemently" denied it.
UCU's social media accounts and mass email lists were used for campaigning by Grady, far beyond the four emails to members permitted to each candidate, including around 13 additional emails from Grady to the membership. Grady is also accused of using union property, a union contractor and union software to produce and host campaign videos.
Candidates had unequal access to put their case to members: Grady spoke alone at events at Bristol, Aberdeen, and Northumbria, which were advertised to members using official union email lists, where other candidates were not invited.

'Basic principle'

Under UK law, union members can ask the Certification Officer (CO) to determine whether union rules have been breached. If breaches are found, the CO can make enforcement orders to address them. Potential remedies include a declaration that rules were breached and an order to rerun an election.

Blake said:

This case is about the basic principle that union elections must be run fairly and in line with the rules that apply to everyone. Members need to be confident that union resources are not used to give any candidate an unfair advantage, and that staff who raise concerns are protected, not punished.

McGaughey said:

We are bringing this case because UCU members have a right to a union that works for them, not a union used by an incumbent to enrich herself. We are members of trade unions to improve each other's working lives, and transform society, with fair pay, equality and democracy. The WhatsApp messages showing Grady ordering UCU staff in the middle of a dispute to get herself re-elected shows how far we must go to rebuild universities and further education for good.

For further information, or to share relevant evidence in confidence about the conduct of the 2024 election, please contact ewan.mcgaughey@kcl.ac.uk and v.blake@leeds.ac.uk.

Featured image via the Canary