Technically — TECHNICALLY! — we still have a system that relies on three co-equal branches to ensure that any single branch can't steamroll the rest of the system (along with the nation it's supposed to serve) to seize an unequal amount of power.

Technically.

What we're seeing now is something else entirely. The judicial branch is headed by people who are willing to give the executive branch what it wants, so long as the executive branch is headed by the Republican party. The legislative branch — fully compromised by MAGA bootlickers — has decided to simply not do its job, allowing the executive branch to seize even more power. The executive branch is now just a throne for a king — a man who feels he shouldn't have to answer to anyone — not even his voting bloc — so long as he remains in power.

The courts can act as a check against executive overreach. But as we've seen time and time again, this position means nothing if you're powerless to enforce it. And that has led to multiple executive officials telling the courts to go fuck themselves when they hand down rulings the administration doesn't like. A current sitting appellate judge no less made a name for himself in the Trump administration by demonstrating his contempt for the judicial system he's now an integral part of.

Only good things can come from this! MAGA indeed!

And while this is only one person's retelling their experience of being caught in the gears of Trump's anti-brown people activities, it's illustrative of what little it matters that there are three co-equal branches when one branch makes it clear on a daily basis that it considers itself to be more equal than the rest of them. (via Kathleen Clark on Bluesky)

This is from a sworn statement [PDF] in ongoing litigation against the federal government, as told by "O.," a Guatemalan resident of Minnesota who has both a pending asylum application as well as a Juvenile Status proceeding still undergoing in the US. None of that mattered to ICE officers, who arrested him in January 2026 and — within 24 hours — shipped him off to a detention center more than a thousand miles from his home.

O. was denied meals, access to phones, access to legal representation, stuffed into overcrowded cells, and generally mistreated by the government that once might have honestly considered the merits of his asylum application.

But the real dirt is this part of the sworn statement, which again exposes this administration's complete disinterest in adhering to orders from US courts, much less even paying the merest of lip service to rights long considered to be derived from none other than the "Creator" himself.

ICE did not tell me that my attorney had been trying to call me and contact me while I was in Texas. They didn't tell me my attorney Kim, had retained another attorney, Kira Kelley, to file a habeas petition on my behalf, or that a court had granted it and ordered my release. They just kept holding me there and occasionally trying to get me to self-deport.

[…]

I was put in a cold cell where I had to sleep on the bare cement floor. Around 10 in the morning my cellmate asked to speak to an ICE officer. Three officers came into the cell so I had a chance to speak to them too. One officer told me that I "had no chance of returning to Minnesota" and that "the best thing for [me] is self-deportation." She told me that if I fought my case, I would spend two to three more months here in El Paso. She offered me $2600 to self-deport. I refused. I wanted to talk to my attorney. They didn't tell me the judge had already ordered my release and return to Minnesota. If I hadn't managed to talk to my attorney who told me a while back that I was ordered released, I might have given up at this point and signed the self deportation forms because the conditions were so unbearable.

So… you see the problem. A court can order a release. But the court relies on the government to carry out this instruction. If it doesn't, the court likely won't know for days or weeks or months. At that point, a new set of rights abuses will have been inflicted on people who should have been freed. When the government is finally asked to answer for this, it will again engage in a bunch of bluster and obfuscation, forcing the court system to treat the administration like a member of the system of checks and balances even when it's immediately clear the executive branch has no desire to be checked and/or balanced.

While more judges are now treating the executive branch as a hostile force unwilling to behave honestly or recognize restraints on its power, the imbalance continues to shift in the administration's favor, largely because it can engage in abusive acts at scale, while the court is restrained to the cases presented to it.

But if you're outside of the system, you can clearly see what's happening and see what the future holds if one-third of the government refuses to do its job (the GOP-led Congress) and the other third can't handle the tidal wave of abuses being presented to it daily. The executive branch will become a kingdom that fears nothing and answers to no one. But the bigger problem is this: most Americans will see this and understand that this will ultimately destroy democracy. Unfortunately, there's a significant number of voters who actually welcome these developments, figuring it's better to lick the boots of someone who prefers to rule in hell, rather than serve the United States.

Microsoft Office 2021 Professional is the perfect choice for any professional who needs to handle data and documents. It comes with many new features that will make you more productive in every stage of development, whether it's processing paperwork or creating presentations from scratch - whatever your needs are. Office Pro comes with MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Teams, OneNote, Publisher, and Access. Microsoft Windows 11 Pro is exactly that. This operating system is designed with the modern professional in mind. Whether you are a developer who needs a secure platform, an artist seeking a seamless experience, or an entrepreneur needing to stay connected effortlessly, Windows 11 Pro is your solution. The Ultimate Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows + Windows 11 Pro Bundle is on sale for $44.97 for a limited time.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Over the years, we've written approximately one million words explaining why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is essential to how the internet functions. We've corrected politicians who lie about it. We've debunked myths spread by mainstream media outlets that should know better. We've explained, re-explained, and then explained again why gutting this law would be catastrophic for online speech.

And now I find myself in the somewhat surreal position of saying: you know who nailed this explanation better than most policy experts, pundits, and certainly better than any sitting member of Congress? A YouTuber named Cr1TiKaL.

If you're not familiar with Charles "Cr1TiKaL" White Jr., he runs the penguinz0 YouTube channel with nearly 18 million subscribers and over 12 billion total views. He's known for deadpan commentary on internet culture and video games. He's not a policy wonk. He's not a lawyer. He's just a guy who apparently bothered to actually understand what Section 230 says and does—something that puts him leagues ahead of the United States Congress.

In this 13-minute video responding to actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt's call to "sunset" Section 230, Cr1TiKaL laid out the case for why 230 matters with a clarity that most mainstream coverage hasn't managed in a decade:

Dismantling section 230 would fundamentally change the internet as you know it. And that's not an exaggeration to say it. Put it even more simply, section 230 allows goobers like me to post whatever they want, saying whatever they want, and the platform itself is not liable for whatever I've made or said. 

That is on me personally. 

The platform isn't going to be, you know, fucking dragged through the streets with legs spread like a goddamn Thanksgiving turkey for it and getting blasted by lawsuits or whatever. Now, of course, there are limitations in place when it comes to illegal content, things that actually break the law. That is, of course, a very different set of circumstances. That's a different can of worms, and that's handled differently. But it should be obvious why section 230 is so important because if these platforms were held liable for every single thing people post on their platforms, they would get into a lot of hot water and they would just not allow people to post things. Full stop. because it would be too dangerous to do so. They would need to micromanage and control every single thing that hits the platform in order to protect themselves. No matter how you spin it, this would ruin the internet. It's a pile of dogshit. No matter how much perfume gets sprayed on it or how they want to repackage it, it still stinks. 

Yes, the metaphors are colorful. But the underlying point is exactly correct. Section 230 places liability where it belongs: on the person who actually created the content. Not on the platform that hosts it. This is how the entire internet works. Every comment section, every social media post, every forum—all of it depends on this basic principle.

Also, he actually reads the 26 words in the video! This is something that so many other critics of 230 skip over, because then they can pretend it says things it doesn't say.

And unlike the politicians who keep pretending this is some kind of special gift to "Big Tech," Cr1TiKaL correctly notes that 230 protects everyone:

This would affect literally every platform that has anything user submitted in any capacity at all. 

Every. Single. One. Your local newspaper's comment section. The neighborhood Facebook group. The subreddit for your favorite hobby. The Discord server where you talk about video games. The email you forward. All of it.

He's also refreshingly clear-eyed about why politicians from both parties keep attacking 230:

Since the advent of the internet, section 230 has been a target for people that want to control your speech and infringe on your First Amendment rights.

This observation tracks with what we've pointed out repeatedly: the bipartisan hatred of Section 230 is one of the most remarkable examples of political unity in modern American governance—and it's driven largely by politicians who want platforms to moderate content in ways that favor their particular political preferences.

Democrats have attacked 230 claiming it enables "misinformation" and hate speech. Republicans have attacked it claiming it enables "censorship" of conservative voices. Both cannot simultaneously be true, and yet both parties have introduced legislation to gut the law. Cr1TiKaL captures this perfectly:

When Democrats were in charge, it caught a lot of scrutiny, claiming that it was enabling the spread of racism and harming children. With Republicans in power, they're claiming that it's spreading misinformation and anti-semitism. This is a bipartisan punching bag that they desperately want to just beat down.

The critics always trot out the same tired arguments about algorithms and echo chambers and extremism. As if removing 230 would somehow make speech better rather than making it disappear entirely or become heavily controlled by whoever has the most money and lawyers. Cr1TiKaL cuts right through this:

There are people that are paying a lot of money to try and plant this idea in your brain that section 230 is a bad thing. It only leads to things like extremism and conspiracy theories and demonization and that kind of thing. That's not true. 

Anyone who stops and thinks about this for even just a moment, firing on a few neurons, should be able to recognize how outrageous this proposal is. How would shutting down conversation and shutting down the ability to express thoughts and opinions somehow help combat the rise of extremism and conspiracies? that would only exacerbate the problem. Censorship doesn't solve these issues. It makes them worse. 

He even anticipates the point we've made countless times about what the internet would look like without 230:

Platforms would not allow just completely unfiltered usage of normal people expressing their thoughts because those thoughts might go against the official narrative from the curated source and then the curated source might go after the platform saying this is defamatory. These people have just said something hosted on your platform and we're coming after you with lawsuits. So they just wouldn't allow it. 

This is a point we keep repeating and you never hear in the actual policy debates, because supporters of a 230 repeal have no answer for it beyond "nuh-uh."

The people who most want to control online speech are exactly the people you'd expect: governments and powerful interests who don't like being criticized. Section 230 is one of the things standing in their way.

And when critics inevitably dust off the "think of the children" argument, Cr1TiKaL delivers the response that shouldn't be controversial but apparently is:

Be a parent. It is not the internet's job to cater to your lack of parenting by just letting your kid online. Fucking lazy trash ass parents just sit a kid in front of a computer or an iPad and then are stunned when apparently they find bad shit. Be a parent. Be involved in your kids' life. Raise your children. Don't make it the internet's job to do that for you. 

Is this delivered with the diplomatic nuance of a congressional hearing? No. Is it correct? Absolutely. The "protect the children" argument for dismantling 230 has always been a dodge—a way to make critics of the bill seem heartless while ignoring that Section 230 doesn't protect illegal content and maybe, just maybe, the primary responsibility for what media children consume should rest with the adults responsible for those children.

We've been writing about Section 230 for years, trying to explain to policymakers and the general public why it matters. And most of the time, it feels like shouting into the void. Politicians keep lying about it. Journalists keep getting it wrong. The mythology around 230 persists no matter how many times it gets corrected.

And we've heard from plenty of younger people who now believe that 230 is bad. I recently guest taught a college class where students were split into two groups—one to argue in favor of 230 and one against—and I was genuinely dismayed when the group told to argue in favor of 230 argue that 230 "once made sense" but doesn't any more.

So there's something genuinely hopeful about seeing a young creator with an audience of nearly 18 million people—an audience that skews young and is probably not spending a lot of time reading policy papers—get it right. Not just right in a general sense, but right in the specifics. He read the law. He understood what it does. He correctly identified why it matters and who benefits from dismantling it.

Maybe the generation that grew up on the internet actually understands what's at stake when politicians threaten to fundamentally reshape how it works. Maybe they're not buying the moral panic narratives that have been trotted out to justify every bad piece of tech legislation for the past decade.

Or maybe I'm being optimistic. Either way, Cr1TiKaL's video is worth watching. It's profane, it's casual, and it's more correct about Section 230 than anything you'll hear from the halls of Congress.

The post Seen In Print: Riding The KTM 990 RC R On Track appeared first on Roadracing World Magazine | Motorcycle Riding, Racing & Tech News.

Every trafficking victim seated behind Attorney General Pam Bondi at Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing raised their hand when asked whether the Department of Justice had refused to meet with them. Bondi wouldn't turn around to look, according to The New Republic. — Read the rest

The post Bondi refused to turn around and face the Epstein victims sitting right behind her appeared first on Boing Boing.

Jason Momoa will be playing the lead in the forthcoming film adaptation of the Helldivers gaming franchise, according to a report by Variety. The games don't have a story-driven protagonist, so Momoa is likely to play a currently unnamed soldier.

We also have a release date for the Helldivers film. It comes out on November 10, 2027. That's a while from now, but at least it gives fans something to look forward to. The movie is being directed by Justin Lin, who is best known for helming several entries in the Fast & Furious franchise. However, he also directed Star Trek Beyond, proving he can do sci-fi.

Gary Dauberman is penning the script. He wrote both It and It Chapter Two, in addition to the horror film Annabelle and its follow-ups. Dauberman is mostly a horror guy, so we'll have to see how he handles high-octane science fiction.

For the uninitiated, Helldivers is a co-op shooter franchise that's heavily inspired by the movie Starship Troopers. The games are set in a hyper-patriotic dystopia called Super Earth. Helldivers 2 dropped back in 2024, though was recently released for Xbox.

Sony hasn't announced any other actors who will be joining Momoa. We'll keep you updated when more casting news drops.

Threads users have been complaining about its recommendation algorithm pretty much since the beginning of the platform. At some point, this turned into a meme, with users writing posts jokingly addressed to the algorithm in which they requested to see more posts about the topics they're actually interested in.

Now, Meta is turning those "Dear algorithm" posts into an official feature that it says will allow Threads users to tune their recommendations in real time. With the change, users can write a post that begins with "dear algo" to adjust their preferences. For example, you could write "dear algo, show me more posts about cute cats." You can also ask to see fewer posts about topics you don't want to see, like "dear algo, stop showing me posts about sick pets."

You can track your requests to the algorithm in the app's settings in order to revisit them or remove them. You can also retweet other users' "dear algo" posts to have those topics reflected in your feed. Importantly, "dear algo" requests are temporary and only last for three days at a time, which Meta says is meant to keep the algorithm feel fresher and more flexible.  

The rollout of the feature follows a limited test late last year. Now, "dear algo" posts will work for Threads users in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand with more countries coming "soon."

I'm a data & product engineer (whatever that means). I've wandered through journalism, retail, professional sport, music, and software—always searching for the invisible threads between them. Sharing what we've lived through helps others find their path while reshaping our own. I love mixing ideas from distant places to build something new. French by blood, human by heart. Writing about engineering, data and design at From An Engineer Sight. Writing about life at Liminal Duality. — Benoit

• STAUB Dutch oven/cocotte. Cooking is one of the most peaceful, human, and pleasant activities for me. This classic cocotte allows me to make any French classic, and waiting 3 hours to see that bourguignon come out dark, caramelized and ready for sharing within your family is the best emotion you can get from such a simple iron cocotte.
• Simple binder. As an avid reader of blog posts, I tried several things (Remarkable, iPad, Kindle, etc.). But in the end, printing sheets of paper and putting them in a simple transparent binder is the best I have found. Less screen, fewer notifications, and the feeling of true simple paper is inequitable.
• Hugo Boss Coat. It's made from Italian fabric, it's expensive, but as my mom says, "Quality stays, price vanishes" (a very bad motto when you go shopping…). Having a top-quality coat makes it easy to go outside when it's cold. It's also comforting when you go out at night—it's almost like being in bed already. You don't leave it on a random chair. You look for a coat rack nearby. You take care of it, as it takes care of you.

• TheNewPrinter: my vibe-coded project to print blog posts on paper with a basic template to make them look like a quality newspaper.
• The intro video of Dynamicland project. I hope the future of computing interface is taking this direction.

"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened"

Sign up here to get What's in my NOW? a week early in your inbox.

Eight thousand new EV chargers will be installed in Canada at a cost of $84 million. At the moment, Canada has about 35,000 public EV chargers. Canada also supports the transition to zero-emissions vehicles with EV incentives and the country has huge sustainable transition goals, as stated here: "To help ... [continued]

The post 8,000 New EV Chargers To Be Installed In Canada appeared first on CleanTechnica.

The endangerment finding is about to be removed from official US policy, thanks to the tireless efforts of hard core activists.

The post The Four People At The Center Of The Endangerment Finding Storm In The US appeared first on CleanTechnica.

This article from 2023 is collapse related because it poses social and philosophical questions about how ordinary people might eventually respond to climate breakdown and global pollution. The main cast of the movie is a group of young people with fairly diverse backgrounds, yet all sharing a common goal.

The movie is loosely based on the premise of a book with the same name, written by Andreas Malm in 2021. Malm is currently an associate professor at the prestigious Lund University in Sweden.

This article is not advocating violence or destruction of property in any way and neither am I - that would break the rules. It merely wonders how bad things must get before ordinary people begin doing what was previously unthinkable. It considers what the rationales and criticisms could be based on what happens in the movie.

The tables are turned for this episode of the Paddock Pass Podcast. We asked our Patreon supporters for their MotoGP hot takes after the Sepang MotoGP test, and boy did they deliver. Will Fabio Quartararo pull a Maverick Viñales with Yamaha's V4? Will Marc Marquez do a one-year deal with Ducati then head back to Honda? What, exactly, is up with KTM? We also give our one-line verdicts on the Sepang MotoGP test, and discuss the MotoGP launch. Read Adam's piece on the launch here.

• Read more about Paddock Pass Podcast Episode 537: Dissecting Your Sepang MotoGP Hot Takes And A Look At The Launch
• Log in or register to post comments

Promo AI projects fail at scale not because models don't work or GPUs lack performance. They fail because data can't keep pace.…

My father, Alex Kirby, who has died of cancer aged 86, was a well-respected journalist - at the BBC and elsewhere - and, despite beginning his career in the church, ended up dedicating much of his life to chronicling the climate crisis.

Following a degree in theology at Keble College, Oxford, he trained for the priesthood at the Anglo-Catholic theological college in Mirfield, Yorkshire, and after ordination, became a deacon in the Isle of Dogs, east London.

When Lucid Motors announced plans to build its first manufacturing facility outside the United States in 2022, the move was framed as both symbolic and strategic. The plant in King Abdullah Economic City (KAEC) would not only become Saudi Arabia's first car factory, but also a cornerstone of the kingdom's ... [continued]

The post Lucid Is Finishing A Greenfield EV Plant For The Next Phase Of Global Manufacturing appeared first on CleanTechnica.

BYD recently announced the revised Atto 3 EVO in Europe, ahead of its official release in China. While there is no official pricing yet, deliveries are expected soon, with the car already appearing on the website. Cosmetically, the changes are minor, and we have already seen many of them in ... [continued]

The post BYD Launches RWD & AWD Atto 3 EVO In Europe First appeared first on CleanTechnica.

Since 2016, Norwich Science Festival, which this year runs from 14-21 February, has inspired, excited and entertained. The aim is to encourage careers in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). And as today is International Day of Women and Girls in Science, we are proud to bring you one local woman's story of how her contribution made a difference to science.

As of December 2024, women make up only 27.6% of the UK's core STEM workforce. Yet women have long played an important, but often unacknowledged, role in advancing science. Alice Grace Cook, born in 1877 in Stowmarket, is one such remarkable lady. She had a passion for astronomy. More remarkable, is that she taught fellow amateur, JP Manning Prentice observing and astronomy. Prentice went on to become a key member of Sir Bernard Lovell's team of (professional) scientists. Their work together led to advances in radio astronomy, and Lovell building Jodrell Bank - in its day, the largest radio telescope on earth.

In a letter to Dennis Jack Fulcher from 1951, Cook describes her life pursuing astronomy. It demonstrates what is possible with passion and determination.

Stargazing was something Cook was brought up with. Her grandmother possessed astronomy books and a small telescope which her mother used frequently. It was not until 1909 that Cook's interest in astronomy was really aroused. She attended six Cambridge Extension Lectures in Stowmarket, delivered by Joseph Alfred Hardcastle, an accomplished lecturer in astronomy.

At the close of the first lecture, Hardcastle invited students to join him for a tutorial. Cook writes that his "method of teaching was to encourage his students to make their own discoveries in the sky". And that is what Cook did over the remaining years of her life.

Cook's astronomical achievements and publication list is astonishing. In 1916, she was one of the first women to be elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Her early work with Hardcastle included making diagrams for his students, assisting his search for clusters and nebulae, plotting the finds on a star map and showing how they were situated in regard to the Milky Way. Cook searched for comets, spotting Miner's comet and Halley's Comet. She even had her own observatory built and reported her observations of sunspots, the Moon, telescopic comets and Saturn.

Cook also spent time in her deck chair outdoors observing the night sky, and was rewarded with sightings of meteors, aurorae and zodiacal light, and the strange light clouds; solar and lunar haloes, and the Gegenschein. In 1920, Cook was appointed the Meteor Director at the British Astronomical Association and held the post until 1923, when it was taken over by Manning Prentice, the Suffolk solicitor she had taught.

Her most notable achievement was on 8 June 1918, when she went out to search for slow moving bright meteors. "Almost at once, I spotted a strange star, twinkling violently and changing colours rapidly," she wrote. "I was the first astronomer in England to make the earliest observation of Nova Aquilae."

Towards the end of her life, Cook became a founding member of the Ipswich and District Astronomical Society, the pre-curser to The Orwell Astronomical Society.

The purpose of Norwich Science Festival is to explain, excite and encourage children, young people and adults to have a lifelong interest in science. But more importantly, through access to researchers, scientists and practitioners, to inspire and demonstrate the breadth of science - from astronomy to geology, from the microscopic to the macroscopic, from biology to psychology, from physics to chemistry and beyond.

As the life of Alice Grace Cook demonstrates, even a 100 years ago and without the opportunities that exist in the modern world, with passion and determination, anyone with an interest in science can have a profound impact on the world.

Who knows, maybe one day that someone will be you.

Alice Grace Cook's original letter to Dennis Jack Fulcher is held by the Suffolk Archives (www.suffolkarchives.co.uk).

With a thematic issue on a vital topic - the rise child poverty, ending on a hopeful note. You will find sharp analyses on the effect of poverty on children's lives, with a spotlight on the communities that are on the front line of deprivation, with personal stories and shared solutions. Click on the image to gain access to it, or find us on Substack.

Journalism by the people, for the people.

The post How one remarkable Suffolk woman helped shape modern astronomy first appeared on East Anglia Bylines.

TikTok US just launched a local feed for users to "get the inside scoop on must-try restaurants, shops, museums and events." This is done by leveraging the exact location of people that are using the app and comes after a change in the platform's terms of service that says the app can do just that. The platform's terms of service used to note that it could collect approximate locations, but the sale to US investors looks to have changed that to precise locations.

This is an opt-in feature, despite the app potentially collecting this data whether the feed is activated or not. The feed is set to "off" by default, but can be changed via a trip to settings.

The local feed doesn't show your neighbors or people you might vibe with to help solve that pesky loneliness epidemic. Instead, it prioritizes local businesses and will highlight nearby events, shopping suggestions and restaurants to try.

This looks to be part of a broader push to attract small businesses to the app, both as content producers and as advertisers. As TechCrunch notes, this could also help insulate the company from future regulation and increased scrutiny, as it could point to the many small businesses that rely on its services. 

TikTok states that over 7.5 million businesses use the platform in the US to reach customers. However, this data is sourced from an Oxford Economics report from before a group of investors finalized a deal for the US version of the app.

Supporting local businesses is a noble goal, but users will have to consider whether or not the value of a dedicated feed is worth the privacy risk. Oracle is a prominent investor in the new American TikTok, and company founder Larry Ellison once said "citizens will be on their best behavior" when they are being constantly surveilled.

This local feed isn't exactly a new idea. TikTok has been trying something similar in Europe since the tail-end of last year. It has shown up in the UK, France, Italy and Germany.

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

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.

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

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'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.'

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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].

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

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 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

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:

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

In his latest newsletter, "By Hagbard's Beard," Bobby Campbell explains how he wrestled with a particular question with his Tales of Illuminatus! comic book adaptations: Does Hagbard Celine have a beard or is he clean shaven? I'll let you follow the link for Bobby's solution!

Lots of other interesting news and bits at the link, don't forget to click through Bobby's links! For example, Bobby is working on his plans for a Maybe Day event on July 23 in Berkeley, California: "I've been scouting venues and bugging the locals. Speaking it into existence one step at a time :)))"