text stringlengths 292 49.2k |
|---|
Unravel review – a gorgeously excessive tangled knot of a show, full of blood, pain and pleasure
Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión View image in fullscreen Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión This article is more than 1 year old Review Unravel review – a gorgeously excessive tangled knot of a show, full of blood, pain and pleasure This article is more than 1 year old Barbican, London From a black jacket that looks like a bat hanging in a cave to a garment stained with the blood of an assassinated Panamanian, this celebration of textile art is ravishing and riveting A needle piercing an eye, the image sewn with human hair. Another needle through a nipple and a third sewing up the lips to silence them. Detached from the body, human hair can be waste – there’s something abject and awful about hair clogging a sink – and it can be a sentimental keepsake kept in a locket. It can become a thread. You can draw with it or sew with it. In this work, Hong Kong artist Angela Su does both. You need to get up close and you want to step away. She’s giving us something of herself that is filled with pain. View image in fullscreen Mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave … Vêtement Noir (Black Garment), by Magdalena Abakanowicz. Photograph: Harold Strak/Abakanowicz Arts and Culture Charitable Foundation Solange Pessoa ’s dropsical, ballooning sacs of earth sag and bulge like bags of guts in a hammock. Magdalena Abakanowicz ’s sisal body is suspended from above, as heavy and dark and as cloaked and mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave. A little sewn-up pink woman, by Louise Bourgeois , floats above its shadow, forever falling. Sometimes it is impossible to know what we are looking at: like something between a body part and an item of alien underwear, Xhosa artist Nicholas Hlobo ’s Babelana Ngentloko (“they share a head”) trails long tentacle-like ribbons behind a bulging white leather pouch. You could imagine finding this in an aquarium, under a microscope, in a jar in a medical museum or in an exotic lingerie shop. Almost a painting or a relief or a drawing, but not quite any of these things, Hlobo’s work twists itself toward us, as if aware of our presence. Hybrid, heterodox, filled with strangeness and anger and beauty and horror, Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art at the Barbican is often gorgeously excessive, at other moments quiet and private, not giving up its secrets until you linger. It is also filled with stories and materiality, tenderness and violence. This great tangled knot of an exhibition twines the delicate and the intemperate, the flamboyant and funereal, the ancestral and the everyday. We visit a neighbourhood bodega in Tschabalala Self ’s evocations of fast-disappearing Harlem community life, and revisit Tracey Emin ’s teenage trauma, in a 1999 appliqued blanket that celebrates her rage and resistance at the experience of being raped as a 13-year-old schoolgirl. There are scenes of traditional Roma life in Poland, and of the spirit world of Haitian Voudu. We swim among the groupers and turtles and rays on Tau Lewis ’s coral reef of recycled fabrics, and come across Margarita Cabrera ’s green cacti, sewn from US border patrol uniforms, the insignia still visible, by Spanish–speaking immigrants. View image in fullscreen Fast-disappearing Harlem community … Koco at the Bodega by Tschabalala Self. Photograph: Tschabalala Self, Pilar Corrias, London, and Galerie Eva Presenhuber, Zurich/Vienna Sandwiched under glass and hung at right angles to the gallery wall, LJ Roberts ’ small images depict dyke parades and protests following a transphobic attack. We can also see the reverse sides of these embroideries, all the incidental loose and buried threads looping and snaggling and curling in a sort of incidental recognition of the complexity and messiness of relationships. The complexities are more than material. Sheila Hicks asked friends and relatives for their most beloved pieces of clothing, which she then wrapped and decorated with coloured threads, presented as a heap of multicoloured balls in a vitrine, each one enclosing secrets and memories. Throughout Unravel there are moments when I am stilled, touched and moved by the intimacies the works record. Sewing and embroidering and beading and weaving and the quiet focus that goes into the work’s completion often beg for our own proximity and attendance to the small details. Physical intimacy is often important here. José Leonilson made embroidered texts about life as a queer man with HIV in São Paulo in the early 1990s. Time was running out, but he chose a medium that demanded long periods of concentration. The calm that was necessary to make the work may well have been therapeutic. These are unquiet works. Similarly, Paraguayan artist Feliciano Centurión ’s embroidered mixes of text and image look like samplers. “I am a soul in pain,” he wrote in one. “ Estoy vivo! ” (“I am alive!”) in another. The words arise amid blooming flowers. View image in fullscreen Secrets and memories … Family Treasures by Sheila Hicks. Photograph: Sheila Hicks, ADAGP Paris and DACS London, courtesy Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam Then life crashes in with a roar. In a tapestry by Diedrick Brackens , one black man carries another from a burning building, escaping the flames bursting around them in the gouts of flaring, latch-hooked acrylic yarn that erupt from the surface. Sometimes we have to get up close and sometimes we’re surrounded. Igshaan Adams takes us on a walk through the hinterlands between two South African townships that had, historically, been deliberately segregated. Using aerial photographs to map these territories of division and exclusion, and the paths people take between them, Adams navigates physical and spiritual proximities and distances. Slender coiling and twisting wires and threads create drifting clouds and dust-devils, spangled with vortices of beads and shells, in a sort of particulate airborne soup that we walk through, as if we’ve kicked up dust going between places and times. Kicking up dust is what Adams does. View image in fullscreen Kicking up dust … Gebedswolke (Prayer Clouds) by Igshaan Adams. Photograph: Igshaan Adams and blank projects, Cape Town All media have their histories, and textiles go back as far as it is possible to go. However you define it, and with its closer definitions as applique or knitting, sewing or stitching, tapestry or embroidery, weaving or quilting, the work here flips between one thing and another – from nature to artifice, image to object, from process to protest, storytelling to commemoration. Two slabs sit in a room, each like a bier or an autopsy table, lit from below. On each is a textile, filled with images and symbols. One is permeated with the blood of a woman assassinated in Panama City, the other bears bloody handprints and commemorates the killing of Eric Garner while being arrested on Staten Island in 2014. Mexican artist Teresa Margolles made one shroud-like textile in collaboration with a family of Kuna descent, the other with the Harlem Needle arts institute. These communal works ask if wounds can ever heal. Dealing with trauma, anger and possibility of healing, the medium is not the message, but it is a consummate vehicle. To repair and renew, to sew and to weave and to join, to patch and to shroud, are integral to textile art. There is almost too much to unpick here. This often ravishing, sometimes moving collaboration between the Barbican and the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam is one of the best and most thought provoking I have seen on the subject. Call it fibre art or textile art, call it high art or low, do we really care to argue any more whether textiles are craft, applied art or fine art? Call it what you like – textiles here are frequently drawing and sculpting and painting by other means. They are also clothing and rugs and blankets, pictures and maps, totems and abstractions, repositories of history and memory. The exhibition unravels with dyes and blood, pain, pleasure, politics and history. Life and death run through it. Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art is at the Barbican, London, until 26 May Explore more on these topics Textile art Installation Art Barbican reviews Share Reuse this content Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión View image in fullscreen Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión This article is more than 1 year old Review Unravel review – a gorgeously excessive tangled knot of a show, full of blood, pain and pleasure This article is more than 1 year old Barbican, London From a black jacket that looks like a bat hanging in a cave to a garment stained with the blood of an assassinated Panamanian, this celebration of textile art is ravishing and riveting A needle piercing an eye, the image sewn with human hair. Another needle through a nipple and a third sewing up the lips to silence them. Detached from the body, human hair can be waste – there’s something abject and awful about hair clogging a sink – and it can be a sentimental keepsake kept in a locket. It can become a thread. You can draw with it or sew with it. In this work, Hong Kong artist Angela Su does both. You need to get up close and you want to step away. She’s giving us something of herself that is filled with pain. View image in fullscreen Mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave … Vêtement Noir (Black Garment), by Magdalena Abakanowicz. Photograph: Harold Strak/Abakanowicz Arts and Culture Charitable Foundation Solange Pessoa ’s dropsical, ballooning sacs of earth sag and bulge like bags of guts in a hammock. Magdalena Abakanowicz ’s sisal body is suspended from above, as heavy and dark and as cloaked and mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave. A little sewn-up pink woman, by Louise Bourgeois , floats above its shadow, forever falling. Sometimes it is impossible to know what we are looking at: like something between a body part and an item of alien underwear, Xhosa artist Nicholas Hlobo ’s Babelana Ngentloko (“they share a head”) trails long tentacle-like ribbons behind a bulging white leather pouch. You could imagine finding this in an aquarium, under a microscope, in a jar in a medical museum or in an exotic lingerie shop. Almost a painting or a relief or a drawing, but not quite any of these things, Hlobo’s work twists itself toward us, as if aware of our presence. Hybrid, heterodox, filled with strangeness and anger and beauty and horror, Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art at the Barbican is often gorgeously excessive, at other moments quiet and private, not giving up its secrets until you linger. It is also filled with stories and materiality, tenderness and violence. This great tangled knot of an exhibition twines the delicate and the intemperate, the flamboyant and funereal, the ancestral and the everyday. We visit a neighbourhood bodega in Tschabalala Self ’s evocations of fast-disappearing Harlem community life, and revisit Tracey Emin ’s teenage trauma, in a 1999 appliqued blanket that celebrates her rage and resistance at the experience of being raped as a 13-year-old schoolgirl. There are scenes of traditional Roma life in Poland, and of the spirit world of Haitian Voudu. We swim among the groupers and turtles and rays on Tau Lewis ’s coral reef of recycled fabrics, and come across Margarita Cabrera ’s green cacti, sewn from US border patrol uniforms, the insignia still visible, by Spanish–speaking immigrants. View image in fullscreen Fast-disappearing Harlem community … Koco at the Bodega by Tschabalala Self. Photograph: Tschabalala Self, Pilar Corrias, London, and Galerie Eva Presenhuber, Zurich/Vienna Sandwiched under glass and hung at right angles to the gallery wall, LJ Roberts ’ small images depict dyke parades and protests following a transphobic attack. We can also see the reverse sides of these embroideries, all the incidental loose and buried threads looping and snaggling and curling in a sort of incidental recognition of the complexity and messiness of relationships. The complexities are more than material. Sheila Hicks asked friends and relatives for their most beloved pieces of clothing, which she then wrapped and decorated with coloured threads, presented as a heap of multicoloured balls in a vitrine, each one enclosing secrets and memories. Throughout Unravel there are moments when I am stilled, touched and moved by the intimacies the works record. Sewing and embroidering and beading and weaving and the quiet focus that goes into the work’s completion often beg for our own proximity and attendance to the small details. Physical intimacy is often important here. José Leonilson made embroidered texts about life as a queer man with HIV in São Paulo in the early 1990s. Time was running out, but he chose a medium that demanded long periods of concentration. The calm that was necessary to make the work may well have been therapeutic. These are unquiet works. Similarly, Paraguayan artist Feliciano Centurión ’s embroidered mixes of text and image look like samplers. “I am a soul in pain,” he wrote in one. “ Estoy vivo! ” (“I am alive!”) in another. The words arise amid blooming flowers. View image in fullscreen Secrets and memories … Family Treasures by Sheila Hicks. Photograph: Sheila Hicks, ADAGP Paris and DACS London, courtesy Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam Then life crashes in with a roar. In a tapestry by Diedrick Brackens , one black man carries another from a burning building, escaping the flames bursting around them in the gouts of flaring, latch-hooked acrylic yarn that erupt from the surface. Sometimes we have to get up close and sometimes we’re surrounded. Igshaan Adams takes us on a walk through the hinterlands between two South African townships that had, historically, been deliberately segregated. Using aerial photographs to map these territories of division and exclusion, and the paths people take between them, Adams navigates physical and spiritual proximities and distances. Slender coiling and twisting wires and threads create drifting clouds and dust-devils, spangled with vortices of beads and shells, in a sort of particulate airborne soup that we walk through, as if we’ve kicked up dust going between places and times. Kicking up dust is what Adams does. View image in fullscreen Kicking up dust … Gebedswolke (Prayer Clouds) by Igshaan Adams. Photograph: Igshaan Adams and blank projects, Cape Town All media have their histories, and textiles go back as far as it is possible to go. However you define it, and with its closer definitions as applique or knitting, sewing or stitching, tapestry or embroidery, weaving or quilting, the work here flips between one thing and another – from nature to artifice, image to object, from process to protest, storytelling to commemoration. Two slabs sit in a room, each like a bier or an autopsy table, lit from below. On each is a textile, filled with images and symbols. One is permeated with the blood of a woman assassinated in Panama City, the other bears bloody handprints and commemorates the killing of Eric Garner while being arrested on Staten Island in 2014. Mexican artist Teresa Margolles made one shroud-like textile in collaboration with a family of Kuna descent, the other with the Harlem Needle arts institute. These communal works ask if wounds can ever heal. Dealing with trauma, anger and possibility of healing, the medium is not the message, but it is a consummate vehicle. To repair and renew, to sew and to weave and to join, to patch and to shroud, are integral to textile art. There is almost too much to unpick here. This often ravishing, sometimes moving collaboration between the Barbican and the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam is one of the best and most thought provoking I have seen on the subject. Call it fibre art or textile art, call it high art or low, do we really care to argue any more whether textiles are craft, applied art or fine art? Call it what you like – textiles here are frequently drawing and sculpting and painting by other means. They are also clothing and rugs and blankets, pictures and maps, totems and abstractions, repositories of history and memory. The exhibition unravels with dyes and blood, pain, pleasure, politics and history. Life and death run through it. Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art is at the Barbican, London, until 26 May Explore more on these topics Textile art Installation Art Barbican reviews Share Reuse this content Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión View image in fullscreen Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión View image in fullscreen Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión View image in fullscreen Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión View image in fullscreen Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión Unquiet work … Eye with Ñandutí by Feliciano Centurión. Photograph: Cecilia Brunson Projects, Familia Feliciano Centurión This article is more than 1 year old Review Unravel review – a gorgeously excessive tangled knot of a show, full of blood, pain and pleasure This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Review Unravel review – a gorgeously excessive tangled knot of a show, full of blood, pain and pleasure This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Review Unravel review – a gorgeously excessive tangled knot of a show, full of blood, pain and pleasure This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Barbican, London From a black jacket that looks like a bat hanging in a cave to a garment stained with the blood of an assassinated Panamanian, this celebration of textile art is ravishing and riveting Barbican, London From a black jacket that looks like a bat hanging in a cave to a garment stained with the blood of an assassinated Panamanian, this celebration of textile art is ravishing and riveting Barbican, London From a black jacket that looks like a bat hanging in a cave to a garment stained with the blood of an assassinated Panamanian, this celebration of textile art is ravishing and riveting A needle piercing an eye, the image sewn with human hair. Another needle through a nipple and a third sewing up the lips to silence them. Detached from the body, human hair can be waste – there’s something abject and awful about hair clogging a sink – and it can be a sentimental keepsake kept in a locket. It can become a thread. You can draw with it or sew with it. In this work, Hong Kong artist Angela Su does both. You need to get up close and you want to step away. She’s giving us something of herself that is filled with pain. View image in fullscreen Mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave … Vêtement Noir (Black Garment), by Magdalena Abakanowicz. Photograph: Harold Strak/Abakanowicz Arts and Culture Charitable Foundation Solange Pessoa ’s dropsical, ballooning sacs of earth sag and bulge like bags of guts in a hammock. Magdalena Abakanowicz ’s sisal body is suspended from above, as heavy and dark and as cloaked and mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave. A little sewn-up pink woman, by Louise Bourgeois , floats above its shadow, forever falling. Sometimes it is impossible to know what we are looking at: like something between a body part and an item of alien underwear, Xhosa artist Nicholas Hlobo ’s Babelana Ngentloko (“they share a head”) trails long tentacle-like ribbons behind a bulging white leather pouch. You could imagine finding this in an aquarium, under a microscope, in a jar in a medical museum or in an exotic lingerie shop. Almost a painting or a relief or a drawing, but not quite any of these things, Hlobo’s work twists itself toward us, as if aware of our presence. Hybrid, heterodox, filled with strangeness and anger and beauty and horror, Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art at the Barbican is often gorgeously excessive, at other moments quiet and private, not giving up its secrets until you linger. It is also filled with stories and materiality, tenderness and violence. This great tangled knot of an exhibition twines the delicate and the intemperate, the flamboyant and funereal, the ancestral and the everyday. We visit a neighbourhood bodega in Tschabalala Self ’s evocations of fast-disappearing Harlem community life, and revisit Tracey Emin ’s teenage trauma, in a 1999 appliqued blanket that celebrates her rage and resistance at the experience of being raped as a 13-year-old schoolgirl. There are scenes of traditional Roma life in Poland, and of the spirit world of Haitian Voudu. We swim among the groupers and turtles and rays on Tau Lewis ’s coral reef of recycled fabrics, and come across Margarita Cabrera ’s green cacti, sewn from US border patrol uniforms, the insignia still visible, by Spanish–speaking immigrants. View image in fullscreen Fast-disappearing Harlem community … Koco at the Bodega by Tschabalala Self. Photograph: Tschabalala Self, Pilar Corrias, London, and Galerie Eva Presenhuber, Zurich/Vienna Sandwiched under glass and hung at right angles to the gallery wall, LJ Roberts ’ small images depict dyke parades and protests following a transphobic attack. We can also see the reverse sides of these embroideries, all the incidental loose and buried threads looping and snaggling and curling in a sort of incidental recognition of the complexity and messiness of relationships. The complexities are more than material. Sheila Hicks asked friends and relatives for their most beloved pieces of clothing, which she then wrapped and decorated with coloured threads, presented as a heap of multicoloured balls in a vitrine, each one enclosing secrets and memories. Throughout Unravel there are moments when I am stilled, touched and moved by the intimacies the works record. Sewing and embroidering and beading and weaving and the quiet focus that goes into the work’s completion often beg for our own proximity and attendance to the small details. Physical intimacy is often important here. José Leonilson made embroidered texts about life as a queer man with HIV in São Paulo in the early 1990s. Time was running out, but he chose a medium that demanded long periods of concentration. The calm that was necessary to make the work may well have been therapeutic. These are unquiet works. Similarly, Paraguayan artist Feliciano Centurión ’s embroidered mixes of text and image look like samplers. “I am a soul in pain,” he wrote in one. “ Estoy vivo! ” (“I am alive!”) in another. The words arise amid blooming flowers. View image in fullscreen Secrets and memories … Family Treasures by Sheila Hicks. Photograph: Sheila Hicks, ADAGP Paris and DACS London, courtesy Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam Then life crashes in with a roar. In a tapestry by Diedrick Brackens , one black man carries another from a burning building, escaping the flames bursting around them in the gouts of flaring, latch-hooked acrylic yarn that erupt from the surface. Sometimes we have to get up close and sometimes we’re surrounded. Igshaan Adams takes us on a walk through the hinterlands between two South African townships that had, historically, been deliberately segregated. Using aerial photographs to map these territories of division and exclusion, and the paths people take between them, Adams navigates physical and spiritual proximities and distances. Slender coiling and twisting wires and threads create drifting clouds and dust-devils, spangled with vortices of beads and shells, in a sort of particulate airborne soup that we walk through, as if we’ve kicked up dust going between places and times. Kicking up dust is what Adams does. View image in fullscreen Kicking up dust … Gebedswolke (Prayer Clouds) by Igshaan Adams. Photograph: Igshaan Adams and blank projects, Cape Town All media have their histories, and textiles go back as far as it is possible to go. However you define it, and with its closer definitions as applique or knitting, sewing or stitching, tapestry or embroidery, weaving or quilting, the work here flips between one thing and another – from nature to artifice, image to object, from process to protest, storytelling to commemoration. Two slabs sit in a room, each like a bier or an autopsy table, lit from below. On each is a textile, filled with images and symbols. One is permeated with the blood of a woman assassinated in Panama City, the other bears bloody handprints and commemorates the killing of Eric Garner while being arrested on Staten Island in 2014. Mexican artist Teresa Margolles made one shroud-like textile in collaboration with a family of Kuna descent, the other with the Harlem Needle arts institute. These communal works ask if wounds can ever heal. Dealing with trauma, anger and possibility of healing, the medium is not the message, but it is a consummate vehicle. To repair and renew, to sew and to weave and to join, to patch and to shroud, are integral to textile art. There is almost too much to unpick here. This often ravishing, sometimes moving collaboration between the Barbican and the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam is one of the best and most thought provoking I have seen on the subject. Call it fibre art or textile art, call it high art or low, do we really care to argue any more whether textiles are craft, applied art or fine art? Call it what you like – textiles here are frequently drawing and sculpting and painting by other means. They are also clothing and rugs and blankets, pictures and maps, totems and abstractions, repositories of history and memory. The exhibition unravels with dyes and blood, pain, pleasure, politics and history. Life and death run through it. Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art is at the Barbican, London, until 26 May Explore more on these topics Textile art Installation Art Barbican reviews Share Reuse this content A needle piercing an eye, the image sewn with human hair. Another needle through a nipple and a third sewing up the lips to silence them. Detached from the body, human hair can be waste – there’s something abject and awful about hair clogging a sink – and it can be a sentimental keepsake kept in a locket. It can become a thread. You can draw with it or sew with it. In this work, Hong Kong artist Angela Su does both. You need to get up close and you want to step away. She’s giving us something of herself that is filled with pain. View image in fullscreen Mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave … Vêtement Noir (Black Garment), by Magdalena Abakanowicz. Photograph: Harold Strak/Abakanowicz Arts and Culture Charitable Foundation Solange Pessoa ’s dropsical, ballooning sacs of earth sag and bulge like bags of guts in a hammock. Magdalena Abakanowicz ’s sisal body is suspended from above, as heavy and dark and as cloaked and mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave. A little sewn-up pink woman, by Louise Bourgeois , floats above its shadow, forever falling. Sometimes it is impossible to know what we are looking at: like something between a body part and an item of alien underwear, Xhosa artist Nicholas Hlobo ’s Babelana Ngentloko (“they share a head”) trails long tentacle-like ribbons behind a bulging white leather pouch. You could imagine finding this in an aquarium, under a microscope, in a jar in a medical museum or in an exotic lingerie shop. Almost a painting or a relief or a drawing, but not quite any of these things, Hlobo’s work twists itself toward us, as if aware of our presence. Hybrid, heterodox, filled with strangeness and anger and beauty and horror, Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art at the Barbican is often gorgeously excessive, at other moments quiet and private, not giving up its secrets until you linger. It is also filled with stories and materiality, tenderness and violence. This great tangled knot of an exhibition twines the delicate and the intemperate, the flamboyant and funereal, the ancestral and the everyday. We visit a neighbourhood bodega in Tschabalala Self ’s evocations of fast-disappearing Harlem community life, and revisit Tracey Emin ’s teenage trauma, in a 1999 appliqued blanket that celebrates her rage and resistance at the experience of being raped as a 13-year-old schoolgirl. There are scenes of traditional Roma life in Poland, and of the spirit world of Haitian Voudu. We swim among the groupers and turtles and rays on Tau Lewis ’s coral reef of recycled fabrics, and come across Margarita Cabrera ’s green cacti, sewn from US border patrol uniforms, the insignia still visible, by Spanish–speaking immigrants. View image in fullscreen Fast-disappearing Harlem community … Koco at the Bodega by Tschabalala Self. Photograph: Tschabalala Self, Pilar Corrias, London, and Galerie Eva Presenhuber, Zurich/Vienna Sandwiched under glass and hung at right angles to the gallery wall, LJ Roberts ’ small images depict dyke parades and protests following a transphobic attack. We can also see the reverse sides of these embroideries, all the incidental loose and buried threads looping and snaggling and curling in a sort of incidental recognition of the complexity and messiness of relationships. The complexities are more than material. Sheila Hicks asked friends and relatives for their most beloved pieces of clothing, which she then wrapped and decorated with coloured threads, presented as a heap of multicoloured balls in a vitrine, each one enclosing secrets and memories. Throughout Unravel there are moments when I am stilled, touched and moved by the intimacies the works record. Sewing and embroidering and beading and weaving and the quiet focus that goes into the work’s completion often beg for our own proximity and attendance to the small details. Physical intimacy is often important here. José Leonilson made embroidered texts about life as a queer man with HIV in São Paulo in the early 1990s. Time was running out, but he chose a medium that demanded long periods of concentration. The calm that was necessary to make the work may well have been therapeutic. These are unquiet works. Similarly, Paraguayan artist Feliciano Centurión ’s embroidered mixes of text and image look like samplers. “I am a soul in pain,” he wrote in one. “ Estoy vivo! ” (“I am alive!”) in another. The words arise amid blooming flowers. View image in fullscreen Secrets and memories … Family Treasures by Sheila Hicks. Photograph: Sheila Hicks, ADAGP Paris and DACS London, courtesy Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam Then life crashes in with a roar. In a tapestry by Diedrick Brackens , one black man carries another from a burning building, escaping the flames bursting around them in the gouts of flaring, latch-hooked acrylic yarn that erupt from the surface. Sometimes we have to get up close and sometimes we’re surrounded. Igshaan Adams takes us on a walk through the hinterlands between two South African townships that had, historically, been deliberately segregated. Using aerial photographs to map these territories of division and exclusion, and the paths people take between them, Adams navigates physical and spiritual proximities and distances. Slender coiling and twisting wires and threads create drifting clouds and dust-devils, spangled with vortices of beads and shells, in a sort of particulate airborne soup that we walk through, as if we’ve kicked up dust going between places and times. Kicking up dust is what Adams does. View image in fullscreen Kicking up dust … Gebedswolke (Prayer Clouds) by Igshaan Adams. Photograph: Igshaan Adams and blank projects, Cape Town All media have their histories, and textiles go back as far as it is possible to go. However you define it, and with its closer definitions as applique or knitting, sewing or stitching, tapestry or embroidery, weaving or quilting, the work here flips between one thing and another – from nature to artifice, image to object, from process to protest, storytelling to commemoration. Two slabs sit in a room, each like a bier or an autopsy table, lit from below. On each is a textile, filled with images and symbols. One is permeated with the blood of a woman assassinated in Panama City, the other bears bloody handprints and commemorates the killing of Eric Garner while being arrested on Staten Island in 2014. Mexican artist Teresa Margolles made one shroud-like textile in collaboration with a family of Kuna descent, the other with the Harlem Needle arts institute. These communal works ask if wounds can ever heal. Dealing with trauma, anger and possibility of healing, the medium is not the message, but it is a consummate vehicle. To repair and renew, to sew and to weave and to join, to patch and to shroud, are integral to textile art. There is almost too much to unpick here. This often ravishing, sometimes moving collaboration between the Barbican and the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam is one of the best and most thought provoking I have seen on the subject. Call it fibre art or textile art, call it high art or low, do we really care to argue any more whether textiles are craft, applied art or fine art? Call it what you like – textiles here are frequently drawing and sculpting and painting by other means. They are also clothing and rugs and blankets, pictures and maps, totems and abstractions, repositories of history and memory. The exhibition unravels with dyes and blood, pain, pleasure, politics and history. Life and death run through it. Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art is at the Barbican, London, until 26 May Explore more on these topics Textile art Installation Art Barbican reviews Share Reuse this content A needle piercing an eye, the image sewn with human hair. Another needle through a nipple and a third sewing up the lips to silence them. Detached from the body, human hair can be waste – there’s something abject and awful about hair clogging a sink – and it can be a sentimental keepsake kept in a locket. It can become a thread. You can draw with it or sew with it. In this work, Hong Kong artist Angela Su does both. You need to get up close and you want to step away. She’s giving us something of herself that is filled with pain. View image in fullscreen Mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave … Vêtement Noir (Black Garment), by Magdalena Abakanowicz. Photograph: Harold Strak/Abakanowicz Arts and Culture Charitable Foundation Solange Pessoa ’s dropsical, ballooning sacs of earth sag and bulge like bags of guts in a hammock. Magdalena Abakanowicz ’s sisal body is suspended from above, as heavy and dark and as cloaked and mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave. A little sewn-up pink woman, by Louise Bourgeois , floats above its shadow, forever falling. Sometimes it is impossible to know what we are looking at: like something between a body part and an item of alien underwear, Xhosa artist Nicholas Hlobo ’s Babelana Ngentloko (“they share a head”) trails long tentacle-like ribbons behind a bulging white leather pouch. You could imagine finding this in an aquarium, under a microscope, in a jar in a medical museum or in an exotic lingerie shop. Almost a painting or a relief or a drawing, but not quite any of these things, Hlobo’s work twists itself toward us, as if aware of our presence. Hybrid, heterodox, filled with strangeness and anger and beauty and horror, Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art at the Barbican is often gorgeously excessive, at other moments quiet and private, not giving up its secrets until you linger. It is also filled with stories and materiality, tenderness and violence. This great tangled knot of an exhibition twines the delicate and the intemperate, the flamboyant and funereal, the ancestral and the everyday. We visit a neighbourhood bodega in Tschabalala Self ’s evocations of fast-disappearing Harlem community life, and revisit Tracey Emin ’s teenage trauma, in a 1999 appliqued blanket that celebrates her rage and resistance at the experience of being raped as a 13-year-old schoolgirl. There are scenes of traditional Roma life in Poland, and of the spirit world of Haitian Voudu. We swim among the groupers and turtles and rays on Tau Lewis ’s coral reef of recycled fabrics, and come across Margarita Cabrera ’s green cacti, sewn from US border patrol uniforms, the insignia still visible, by Spanish–speaking immigrants. View image in fullscreen Fast-disappearing Harlem community … Koco at the Bodega by Tschabalala Self. Photograph: Tschabalala Self, Pilar Corrias, London, and Galerie Eva Presenhuber, Zurich/Vienna Sandwiched under glass and hung at right angles to the gallery wall, LJ Roberts ’ small images depict dyke parades and protests following a transphobic attack. We can also see the reverse sides of these embroideries, all the incidental loose and buried threads looping and snaggling and curling in a sort of incidental recognition of the complexity and messiness of relationships. The complexities are more than material. Sheila Hicks asked friends and relatives for their most beloved pieces of clothing, which she then wrapped and decorated with coloured threads, presented as a heap of multicoloured balls in a vitrine, each one enclosing secrets and memories. Throughout Unravel there are moments when I am stilled, touched and moved by the intimacies the works record. Sewing and embroidering and beading and weaving and the quiet focus that goes into the work’s completion often beg for our own proximity and attendance to the small details. Physical intimacy is often important here. José Leonilson made embroidered texts about life as a queer man with HIV in São Paulo in the early 1990s. Time was running out, but he chose a medium that demanded long periods of concentration. The calm that was necessary to make the work may well have been therapeutic. These are unquiet works. Similarly, Paraguayan artist Feliciano Centurión ’s embroidered mixes of text and image look like samplers. “I am a soul in pain,” he wrote in one. “ Estoy vivo! ” (“I am alive!”) in another. The words arise amid blooming flowers. View image in fullscreen Secrets and memories … Family Treasures by Sheila Hicks. Photograph: Sheila Hicks, ADAGP Paris and DACS London, courtesy Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam Then life crashes in with a roar. In a tapestry by Diedrick Brackens , one black man carries another from a burning building, escaping the flames bursting around them in the gouts of flaring, latch-hooked acrylic yarn that erupt from the surface. Sometimes we have to get up close and sometimes we’re surrounded. Igshaan Adams takes us on a walk through the hinterlands between two South African townships that had, historically, been deliberately segregated. Using aerial photographs to map these territories of division and exclusion, and the paths people take between them, Adams navigates physical and spiritual proximities and distances. Slender coiling and twisting wires and threads create drifting clouds and dust-devils, spangled with vortices of beads and shells, in a sort of particulate airborne soup that we walk through, as if we’ve kicked up dust going between places and times. Kicking up dust is what Adams does. View image in fullscreen Kicking up dust … Gebedswolke (Prayer Clouds) by Igshaan Adams. Photograph: Igshaan Adams and blank projects, Cape Town All media have their histories, and textiles go back as far as it is possible to go. However you define it, and with its closer definitions as applique or knitting, sewing or stitching, tapestry or embroidery, weaving or quilting, the work here flips between one thing and another – from nature to artifice, image to object, from process to protest, storytelling to commemoration. Two slabs sit in a room, each like a bier or an autopsy table, lit from below. On each is a textile, filled with images and symbols. One is permeated with the blood of a woman assassinated in Panama City, the other bears bloody handprints and commemorates the killing of Eric Garner while being arrested on Staten Island in 2014. Mexican artist Teresa Margolles made one shroud-like textile in collaboration with a family of Kuna descent, the other with the Harlem Needle arts institute. These communal works ask if wounds can ever heal. Dealing with trauma, anger and possibility of healing, the medium is not the message, but it is a consummate vehicle. To repair and renew, to sew and to weave and to join, to patch and to shroud, are integral to textile art. There is almost too much to unpick here. This often ravishing, sometimes moving collaboration between the Barbican and the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam is one of the best and most thought provoking I have seen on the subject. Call it fibre art or textile art, call it high art or low, do we really care to argue any more whether textiles are craft, applied art or fine art? Call it what you like – textiles here are frequently drawing and sculpting and painting by other means. They are also clothing and rugs and blankets, pictures and maps, totems and abstractions, repositories of history and memory. The exhibition unravels with dyes and blood, pain, pleasure, politics and history. Life and death run through it. Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art is at the Barbican, London, until 26 May A needle piercing an eye, the image sewn with human hair. Another needle through a nipple and a third sewing up the lips to silence them. Detached from the body, human hair can be waste – there’s something abject and awful about hair clogging a sink – and it can be a sentimental keepsake kept in a locket. It can become a thread. You can draw with it or sew with it. In this work, Hong Kong artist Angela Su does both. You need to get up close and you want to step away. She’s giving us something of herself that is filled with pain. View image in fullscreen Mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave … Vêtement Noir (Black Garment), by Magdalena Abakanowicz. Photograph: Harold Strak/Abakanowicz Arts and Culture Charitable Foundation Solange Pessoa ’s dropsical, ballooning sacs of earth sag and bulge like bags of guts in a hammock. Magdalena Abakanowicz ’s sisal body is suspended from above, as heavy and dark and as cloaked and mysterious as a bat hanging in a cave. A little sewn-up pink woman, by Louise Bourgeois , floats above its shadow, forever falling. Sometimes it is impossible to know what we are looking at: like something between a body part and an item of alien underwear, Xhosa artist Nicholas Hlobo ’s Babelana Ngentloko (“they share a head”) trails long tentacle-like ribbons behind a bulging white leather pouch. You could imagine finding this in an aquarium, under a microscope, in a jar in a medical museum or in an exotic lingerie shop. Almost a painting or a relief or a drawing, but not quite any of these things, Hlobo’s work twists itself toward us, as if aware of our presence. Hybrid, heterodox, filled with strangeness and anger and beauty and horror, Unravel: The Power and Politics of Textiles in Art at the Barbican is often gorgeously excessive, at other moments quiet and private, not giving up its secrets until you linger. It is also filled with stories and materiality, tenderness and violence. This great tangled knot of an exhibition twines the delicate and the intemperate, the flamboyant and funereal, the ancestral and the everyday. We visit a neighbourhood bodega in Tschabalala Self ’s evocations of fast-disappearing Harlem community life, and revisit Tracey Emin ’s teenage trauma, in a 1999 appliqued blanket that celebrates her rage and resistance at the experience of being raped as a 13-year-old schoolgirl. There are scenes of traditional Roma life in Poland, and of the spirit world of Haitian Voudu. We swim among the groupers and turtles and rays on Tau Lewis ’s coral reef of recycled fabrics, and come across Margarita Cabrera ’s green cacti, sewn from US border patrol uniforms, the insignia still visible, by Spanish–speaking immigrants. View image in fullscreen Fast-disappearing Harlem community … Koco at the Bodega by Tschabalala Self. Photograph: Tschabalala Self, Pilar Corrias, London, and Galerie Eva Presenhuber, Zurich/Vienna Sandwiched under glass and hung at right angles to the gallery wall, LJ Roberts ’ small images depict dyke parades and protests following a transphobic attack. We can also see the reverse sides of these embroideries, all the incidental loose and buried threads looping and snaggling and curling in a sort of incidental recognition of the complexity and messiness of relationships. The complexities are more than material. Sheila Hicks asked friends and relatives for their most beloved pieces of clothing, which she then wrapped and decorated with coloured threads, presented as a heap of multicoloured balls in a vitrine, each one enclosing secrets and memories. Throughout Unravel there are moments when I am stilled, touched and moved by the intimacies the works record. Sewing and embroidering and beading and weaving and the quiet focus that goes into the work’s completion often beg for our own proximity and attendance to the small details. Physical intimacy is often important here. José Leonilson made embroidered texts about life as a queer man with HIV in São Paulo in the early 1990s. Time was running out, but he chose a medium that demanded long periods of concentration. The calm that was necessary to make the work may well have been therapeutic. These are unquiet works. Similarly, Paraguayan artist Feliciano Centurión ’s embroidered mixes of text and image look like samplers. “I am a soul in pain,” he wrote in one. “ Estoy vivo! ” (“I am alive!”) in another. The words arise amid blooming flowers. View image in fullscreen Secrets and memories … Family Treasures by Sheila Hicks. Photograph: Sheila Hicks, ADAGP Paris and DACS London, courtesy Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam Then life crashes in with a roar. In a tapestry by Diedrick Brackens , one black man carries another from a burning building, escaping the flames bursting around them in the gouts of flaring, latch-hooked acrylic yarn that erupt from the surface. Sometimes we have to get up close and sometimes we’re surrounded. Igshaan Adams takes us on a walk through the hinterlands between two South African townships that had, historically, been deliberately segregated. Using aerial photographs to map these territories of division and exclusion, and the paths people take between them, Adams navigates physical and spiritual proximities and distances. Slender coiling and twisting wires and threads create drifting clouds and dust-devils, spangled with vortices of beads and shells, in a sort of particulate airborne soup that we walk through, as if we’ve kicked up dust going between places and times. Kicking up dust is what Adams does. View image in fullscreen Kicking up dust … Gebedswolke (Prayer Clouds) by Igshaan Adams. Photograph: Igshaan Adams and blank projects, Cape Town All media have their histories, and textiles go back as far as it is possible to go. However you define it, and with its closer definitions as applique or knitting, sewing or stitching, tapestry or embroidery, weaving or quilting, the work here flips between one thing and another – from nature to artifice, image to object, from process to protest, storytelling to commemoration. Two slabs sit in a room, each like a bier or an autopsy table, lit from below. On each is a textile, filled with images and symbols. One is permeated with the blood of a woman assassinated in Panama City, the other bears bloody handprints and commemorates the killing of Eric Garner while being arrested on Staten Island in 2014. Mexican artist Teresa Margolles made one shroud-like textile in collaboration with a family of Kuna descent, the other with the Harlem Needle arts institute. These communal works ask if wounds can ever heal. Dealing with trauma, anger and possibility of healing, the medium
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Polls open for two byelections in testing times for Tories and Labour
Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA This article is more than 1 year old Polls open for two byelections in testing times for Tories and Labour This article is more than 1 year old Conservatives expected to lose large majorities in Wellingborough and Kingswood despite difficult week for Keir Starmer Polls have opened in the Wellingborough and Kingswood byelections, seen as a final chance for Rishi Sunak to buck predictions that his party is heading for a landslide defeat at the next general election. The Conservatives are defending majorities of more than 18,000 in Wellingborough in Northants and 11,000 in Kingswood in South Gloucestershire. But Labour is expected to win both contests. The party has pulled off a string of byelection victories, gaining four Tory seats in a row since July . The byelection in Wellingborough was called after Peter Bone was successfully recalled by voters in the constituency in December. The parliamentary watchdog found he had broken the MPs’ code of conduct on four counts of bullying and one of sexual misconduct. The panel upheld an earlier report that found he had repeatedly hit and verbally abused a member of his staff, asked him for massages and on one occasion put his bare genitals in the other man’s face. Bone’s partner, Helen Harrison, was selected as the Conservative candidate for the byelection. In Kingswood, a byelection was called after Chris Skidmore, a leading Tory voice on green issues, resigned in protest against the government’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears Read more The byelections come at a testing time for both main parties. Keir Starmer has had one of his most challenging weeks since becoming leader after two parliamentary candidates were suspended over comments relating to Israel. On Wednesday, a Savanta poll saw Labour’s lead over the Conservatives fall by seven points to its lowest level since June. Sunak came under fire last week for agreeing to a £1,000 bet – later rowed back on – with Piers Morgan on whether deportation flights to Rwanda will take off before the general election. He then drew widespread condemnation for deriding Labour’s policy on transgender rights at PMQs after being told that the mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey was watching from the public gallery. The selection of Harrison as the Conservative candidate in Wellingborough has been a source of controversy. High-profile Tory MPs have been absent in the constituency and not a single frontbencher has endorsed Harrison. Last month, Sunak dodged the opportunity to endorse her after he was asked whether he was “proud” she was selected, given her connection to Bone. He said that it was up to local members to choose a candidate. View image in fullscreen Peter Bone was recalled by Wellingborough voters in December last year. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA The Sunday Times reported that Bone had threatened to stand as an independent if the Tories did not include Harrison on their shortlist of candidates. Bone denied the report but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison was selected. Both Labour byelection candidates are former London councillors. Gen Kitchen, running in Wellingborough, grew up in Northamptonshire and she went on to be a councillor in Newham, east London. Damien Egan, the candidate in Kingswood, grew up in the constituency. He resigned as the mayor of Lewisham in south-east London last month. The Tory candidate in Kingswood, Sam Bromiley, leads the party’s group on South Gloucestershire council. Bromiley said his experience as a youth worker would help him tackle crime among young people, promised to stop the Labour-led local council from “hacking into the greenbelt” and said he would work to regenerate the high street. A win for Labour would temper fears that a tough week for the party has significantly threatened its electoral prospects. A win for the Conservatives could give Sunak a lifeline and stave off any long-shot attempts by backbenchers on the right of the party to replace him before the general election . Explore more on these topics Byelections Local politics Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Labour Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA This article is more than 1 year old Polls open for two byelections in testing times for Tories and Labour This article is more than 1 year old Conservatives expected to lose large majorities in Wellingborough and Kingswood despite difficult week for Keir Starmer Polls have opened in the Wellingborough and Kingswood byelections, seen as a final chance for Rishi Sunak to buck predictions that his party is heading for a landslide defeat at the next general election. The Conservatives are defending majorities of more than 18,000 in Wellingborough in Northants and 11,000 in Kingswood in South Gloucestershire. But Labour is expected to win both contests. The party has pulled off a string of byelection victories, gaining four Tory seats in a row since July . The byelection in Wellingborough was called after Peter Bone was successfully recalled by voters in the constituency in December. The parliamentary watchdog found he had broken the MPs’ code of conduct on four counts of bullying and one of sexual misconduct. The panel upheld an earlier report that found he had repeatedly hit and verbally abused a member of his staff, asked him for massages and on one occasion put his bare genitals in the other man’s face. Bone’s partner, Helen Harrison, was selected as the Conservative candidate for the byelection. In Kingswood, a byelection was called after Chris Skidmore, a leading Tory voice on green issues, resigned in protest against the government’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears Read more The byelections come at a testing time for both main parties. Keir Starmer has had one of his most challenging weeks since becoming leader after two parliamentary candidates were suspended over comments relating to Israel. On Wednesday, a Savanta poll saw Labour’s lead over the Conservatives fall by seven points to its lowest level since June. Sunak came under fire last week for agreeing to a £1,000 bet – later rowed back on – with Piers Morgan on whether deportation flights to Rwanda will take off before the general election. He then drew widespread condemnation for deriding Labour’s policy on transgender rights at PMQs after being told that the mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey was watching from the public gallery. The selection of Harrison as the Conservative candidate in Wellingborough has been a source of controversy. High-profile Tory MPs have been absent in the constituency and not a single frontbencher has endorsed Harrison. Last month, Sunak dodged the opportunity to endorse her after he was asked whether he was “proud” she was selected, given her connection to Bone. He said that it was up to local members to choose a candidate. View image in fullscreen Peter Bone was recalled by Wellingborough voters in December last year. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA The Sunday Times reported that Bone had threatened to stand as an independent if the Tories did not include Harrison on their shortlist of candidates. Bone denied the report but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison was selected. Both Labour byelection candidates are former London councillors. Gen Kitchen, running in Wellingborough, grew up in Northamptonshire and she went on to be a councillor in Newham, east London. Damien Egan, the candidate in Kingswood, grew up in the constituency. He resigned as the mayor of Lewisham in south-east London last month. The Tory candidate in Kingswood, Sam Bromiley, leads the party’s group on South Gloucestershire council. Bromiley said his experience as a youth worker would help him tackle crime among young people, promised to stop the Labour-led local council from “hacking into the greenbelt” and said he would work to regenerate the high street. A win for Labour would temper fears that a tough week for the party has significantly threatened its electoral prospects. A win for the Conservatives could give Sunak a lifeline and stave off any long-shot attempts by backbenchers on the right of the party to replace him before the general election . Explore more on these topics Byelections Local politics Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Labour Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA Keir Starmer will hope the Wellingborough candidate Gen Kitchen, right, delivers a Labour victory. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA This article is more than 1 year old Polls open for two byelections in testing times for Tories and Labour This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Polls open for two byelections in testing times for Tories and Labour This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Polls open for two byelections in testing times for Tories and Labour This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Conservatives expected to lose large majorities in Wellingborough and Kingswood despite difficult week for Keir Starmer Conservatives expected to lose large majorities in Wellingborough and Kingswood despite difficult week for Keir Starmer Conservatives expected to lose large majorities in Wellingborough and Kingswood despite difficult week for Keir Starmer Polls have opened in the Wellingborough and Kingswood byelections, seen as a final chance for Rishi Sunak to buck predictions that his party is heading for a landslide defeat at the next general election. The Conservatives are defending majorities of more than 18,000 in Wellingborough in Northants and 11,000 in Kingswood in South Gloucestershire. But Labour is expected to win both contests. The party has pulled off a string of byelection victories, gaining four Tory seats in a row since July . The byelection in Wellingborough was called after Peter Bone was successfully recalled by voters in the constituency in December. The parliamentary watchdog found he had broken the MPs’ code of conduct on four counts of bullying and one of sexual misconduct. The panel upheld an earlier report that found he had repeatedly hit and verbally abused a member of his staff, asked him for massages and on one occasion put his bare genitals in the other man’s face. Bone’s partner, Helen Harrison, was selected as the Conservative candidate for the byelection. In Kingswood, a byelection was called after Chris Skidmore, a leading Tory voice on green issues, resigned in protest against the government’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears Read more The byelections come at a testing time for both main parties. Keir Starmer has had one of his most challenging weeks since becoming leader after two parliamentary candidates were suspended over comments relating to Israel. On Wednesday, a Savanta poll saw Labour’s lead over the Conservatives fall by seven points to its lowest level since June. Sunak came under fire last week for agreeing to a £1,000 bet – later rowed back on – with Piers Morgan on whether deportation flights to Rwanda will take off before the general election. He then drew widespread condemnation for deriding Labour’s policy on transgender rights at PMQs after being told that the mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey was watching from the public gallery. The selection of Harrison as the Conservative candidate in Wellingborough has been a source of controversy. High-profile Tory MPs have been absent in the constituency and not a single frontbencher has endorsed Harrison. Last month, Sunak dodged the opportunity to endorse her after he was asked whether he was “proud” she was selected, given her connection to Bone. He said that it was up to local members to choose a candidate. View image in fullscreen Peter Bone was recalled by Wellingborough voters in December last year. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA The Sunday Times reported that Bone had threatened to stand as an independent if the Tories did not include Harrison on their shortlist of candidates. Bone denied the report but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison was selected. Both Labour byelection candidates are former London councillors. Gen Kitchen, running in Wellingborough, grew up in Northamptonshire and she went on to be a councillor in Newham, east London. Damien Egan, the candidate in Kingswood, grew up in the constituency. He resigned as the mayor of Lewisham in south-east London last month. The Tory candidate in Kingswood, Sam Bromiley, leads the party’s group on South Gloucestershire council. Bromiley said his experience as a youth worker would help him tackle crime among young people, promised to stop the Labour-led local council from “hacking into the greenbelt” and said he would work to regenerate the high street. A win for Labour would temper fears that a tough week for the party has significantly threatened its electoral prospects. A win for the Conservatives could give Sunak a lifeline and stave off any long-shot attempts by backbenchers on the right of the party to replace him before the general election . Explore more on these topics Byelections Local politics Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Labour Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Polls have opened in the Wellingborough and Kingswood byelections, seen as a final chance for Rishi Sunak to buck predictions that his party is heading for a landslide defeat at the next general election. The Conservatives are defending majorities of more than 18,000 in Wellingborough in Northants and 11,000 in Kingswood in South Gloucestershire. But Labour is expected to win both contests. The party has pulled off a string of byelection victories, gaining four Tory seats in a row since July . The byelection in Wellingborough was called after Peter Bone was successfully recalled by voters in the constituency in December. The parliamentary watchdog found he had broken the MPs’ code of conduct on four counts of bullying and one of sexual misconduct. The panel upheld an earlier report that found he had repeatedly hit and verbally abused a member of his staff, asked him for massages and on one occasion put his bare genitals in the other man’s face. Bone’s partner, Helen Harrison, was selected as the Conservative candidate for the byelection. In Kingswood, a byelection was called after Chris Skidmore, a leading Tory voice on green issues, resigned in protest against the government’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears Read more The byelections come at a testing time for both main parties. Keir Starmer has had one of his most challenging weeks since becoming leader after two parliamentary candidates were suspended over comments relating to Israel. On Wednesday, a Savanta poll saw Labour’s lead over the Conservatives fall by seven points to its lowest level since June. Sunak came under fire last week for agreeing to a £1,000 bet – later rowed back on – with Piers Morgan on whether deportation flights to Rwanda will take off before the general election. He then drew widespread condemnation for deriding Labour’s policy on transgender rights at PMQs after being told that the mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey was watching from the public gallery. The selection of Harrison as the Conservative candidate in Wellingborough has been a source of controversy. High-profile Tory MPs have been absent in the constituency and not a single frontbencher has endorsed Harrison. Last month, Sunak dodged the opportunity to endorse her after he was asked whether he was “proud” she was selected, given her connection to Bone. He said that it was up to local members to choose a candidate. View image in fullscreen Peter Bone was recalled by Wellingborough voters in December last year. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA The Sunday Times reported that Bone had threatened to stand as an independent if the Tories did not include Harrison on their shortlist of candidates. Bone denied the report but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison was selected. Both Labour byelection candidates are former London councillors. Gen Kitchen, running in Wellingborough, grew up in Northamptonshire and she went on to be a councillor in Newham, east London. Damien Egan, the candidate in Kingswood, grew up in the constituency. He resigned as the mayor of Lewisham in south-east London last month. The Tory candidate in Kingswood, Sam Bromiley, leads the party’s group on South Gloucestershire council. Bromiley said his experience as a youth worker would help him tackle crime among young people, promised to stop the Labour-led local council from “hacking into the greenbelt” and said he would work to regenerate the high street. A win for Labour would temper fears that a tough week for the party has significantly threatened its electoral prospects. A win for the Conservatives could give Sunak a lifeline and stave off any long-shot attempts by backbenchers on the right of the party to replace him before the general election . Explore more on these topics Byelections Local politics Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Labour Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Polls have opened in the Wellingborough and Kingswood byelections, seen as a final chance for Rishi Sunak to buck predictions that his party is heading for a landslide defeat at the next general election. The Conservatives are defending majorities of more than 18,000 in Wellingborough in Northants and 11,000 in Kingswood in South Gloucestershire. But Labour is expected to win both contests. The party has pulled off a string of byelection victories, gaining four Tory seats in a row since July . The byelection in Wellingborough was called after Peter Bone was successfully recalled by voters in the constituency in December. The parliamentary watchdog found he had broken the MPs’ code of conduct on four counts of bullying and one of sexual misconduct. The panel upheld an earlier report that found he had repeatedly hit and verbally abused a member of his staff, asked him for massages and on one occasion put his bare genitals in the other man’s face. Bone’s partner, Helen Harrison, was selected as the Conservative candidate for the byelection. In Kingswood, a byelection was called after Chris Skidmore, a leading Tory voice on green issues, resigned in protest against the government’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears Read more The byelections come at a testing time for both main parties. Keir Starmer has had one of his most challenging weeks since becoming leader after two parliamentary candidates were suspended over comments relating to Israel. On Wednesday, a Savanta poll saw Labour’s lead over the Conservatives fall by seven points to its lowest level since June. Sunak came under fire last week for agreeing to a £1,000 bet – later rowed back on – with Piers Morgan on whether deportation flights to Rwanda will take off before the general election. He then drew widespread condemnation for deriding Labour’s policy on transgender rights at PMQs after being told that the mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey was watching from the public gallery. The selection of Harrison as the Conservative candidate in Wellingborough has been a source of controversy. High-profile Tory MPs have been absent in the constituency and not a single frontbencher has endorsed Harrison. Last month, Sunak dodged the opportunity to endorse her after he was asked whether he was “proud” she was selected, given her connection to Bone. He said that it was up to local members to choose a candidate. View image in fullscreen Peter Bone was recalled by Wellingborough voters in December last year. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA The Sunday Times reported that Bone had threatened to stand as an independent if the Tories did not include Harrison on their shortlist of candidates. Bone denied the report but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison was selected. Both Labour byelection candidates are former London councillors. Gen Kitchen, running in Wellingborough, grew up in Northamptonshire and she went on to be a councillor in Newham, east London. Damien Egan, the candidate in Kingswood, grew up in the constituency. He resigned as the mayor of Lewisham in south-east London last month. The Tory candidate in Kingswood, Sam Bromiley, leads the party’s group on South Gloucestershire council. Bromiley said his experience as a youth worker would help him tackle crime among young people, promised to stop the Labour-led local council from “hacking into the greenbelt” and said he would work to regenerate the high street. A win for Labour would temper fears that a tough week for the party has significantly threatened its electoral prospects. A win for the Conservatives could give Sunak a lifeline and stave off any long-shot attempts by backbenchers on the right of the party to replace him before the general election . Polls have opened in the Wellingborough and Kingswood byelections, seen as a final chance for Rishi Sunak to buck predictions that his party is heading for a landslide defeat at the next general election. The Conservatives are defending majorities of more than 18,000 in Wellingborough in Northants and 11,000 in Kingswood in South Gloucestershire. But Labour is expected to win both contests. The party has pulled off a string of byelection victories, gaining four Tory seats in a row since July . The byelection in Wellingborough was called after Peter Bone was successfully recalled by voters in the constituency in December. The parliamentary watchdog found he had broken the MPs’ code of conduct on four counts of bullying and one of sexual misconduct. The panel upheld an earlier report that found he had repeatedly hit and verbally abused a member of his staff, asked him for massages and on one occasion put his bare genitals in the other man’s face. Bone’s partner, Helen Harrison, was selected as the Conservative candidate for the byelection. In Kingswood, a byelection was called after Chris Skidmore, a leading Tory voice on green issues, resigned in protest against the government’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears Read more The byelections come at a testing time for both main parties. Keir Starmer has had one of his most challenging weeks since becoming leader after two parliamentary candidates were suspended over comments relating to Israel. On Wednesday, a Savanta poll saw Labour’s lead over the Conservatives fall by seven points to its lowest level since June. Sunak came under fire last week for agreeing to a £1,000 bet – later rowed back on – with Piers Morgan on whether deportation flights to Rwanda will take off before the general election. He then drew widespread condemnation for deriding Labour’s policy on transgender rights at PMQs after being told that the mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey was watching from the public gallery. The selection of Harrison as the Conservative candidate in Wellingborough has been a source of controversy. High-profile Tory MPs have been absent in the constituency and not a single frontbencher has endorsed Harrison. Last month, Sunak dodged the opportunity to endorse her after he was asked whether he was “proud” she was selected, given her connection to Bone. He said that it was up to local members to choose a candidate. View image in fullscreen Peter Bone was recalled by Wellingborough voters in December last year. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA The Sunday Times reported that Bone had threatened to stand as an independent if the Tories did not include Harrison on their shortlist of candidates. Bone denied the report but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison was selected. Both Labour byelection candidates are former London councillors. Gen Kitchen, running in Wellingborough, grew up in Northamptonshire and she went on to be a councillor in Newham, east London. Damien Egan, the candidate in Kingswood, grew up in the constituency. He resigned as the mayor of Lewisham in south-east London last month. The Tory candidate in Kingswood, Sam Bromiley, leads the party’s group on South Gloucestershire council. Bromiley said his experience as a youth worker would help him tackle crime among young people, promised to stop the Labour-led local council from “hacking into the greenbelt” and said he would work to regenerate the high street. A win for Labour would temper fears that a tough week for the party has significantly threatened its electoral prospects. A win for the Conservatives could give Sunak a lifeline and stave off any long-shot attempts by backbenchers on the right of the party to replace him before the general election . Polls have opened in the Wellingborough and Kingswood byelections, seen as a final chance for Rishi Sunak to buck predictions that his party is heading for a landslide defeat at the next general election. The Conservatives are defending majorities of more than 18,000 in Wellingborough in Northants and 11,000 in Kingswood in South Gloucestershire. But Labour is expected to win both contests. The party has pulled off a string of byelection victories, gaining four Tory seats in a row since July . The byelection in Wellingborough was called after Peter Bone was successfully recalled by voters in the constituency in December. The parliamentary watchdog found he had broken the MPs’ code of conduct on four counts of bullying and one of sexual misconduct. The panel upheld an earlier report that found he had repeatedly hit and verbally abused a member of his staff, asked him for massages and on one occasion put his bare genitals in the other man’s face. Bone’s partner, Helen Harrison, was selected as the Conservative candidate for the byelection. In Kingswood, a byelection was called after Chris Skidmore, a leading Tory voice on green issues, resigned in protest against the government’s bill to allow new oil and gas licences to be issued. ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears Read more ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears Read more ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears Read more ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears ‘Anyone but Peter Bone’: voters turn to Labour and Reform UK as Wellingborough byelection nears The byelections come at a testing time for both main parties. Keir Starmer has had one of his most challenging weeks since becoming leader after two parliamentary candidates were suspended over comments relating to Israel. On Wednesday, a Savanta poll saw Labour’s lead over the Conservatives fall by seven points to its lowest level since June. Sunak came under fire last week for agreeing to a £1,000 bet – later rowed back on – with Piers Morgan on whether deportation flights to Rwanda will take off before the general election. He then drew widespread condemnation for deriding Labour’s policy on transgender rights at PMQs after being told that the mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey was watching from the public gallery. The selection of Harrison as the Conservative candidate in Wellingborough has been a source of controversy. High-profile Tory MPs have been absent in the constituency and not a single frontbencher has endorsed Harrison. Last month, Sunak dodged the opportunity to endorse her after he was asked whether he was “proud” she was selected, given her connection to Bone. He said that it was up to local members to choose a candidate. The Sunday Times reported that Bone had threatened to stand as an independent if the Tories did not include Harrison on their shortlist of candidates. Bone denied the report but said it would be “entirely unsurprising” if Harrison was selected. Both Labour byelection candidates are former London councillors. Gen Kitchen, running in Wellingborough, grew up in Northamptonshire and she went on to be a councillor in Newham, east London. Damien Egan, the candidate in Kingswood, grew up in the constituency. He resigned as the mayor of Lewisham in south-east London last month. The Tory candidate in Kingswood, Sam Bromiley, leads the party’s group on South Gloucestershire council. Bromiley said his experience as a youth worker would help him tackle crime among young people, promised to stop the Labour-led local council from “hacking into the greenbelt” and said he would work to regenerate the high street. A win for Labour would temper fears that a tough week for the party has significantly threatened its electoral prospects. A win for the Conservatives could give Sunak a lifeline and stave off any long-shot attempts by backbenchers on the right of the party to replace him before the general election . Explore more on these topics Byelections Local politics Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Labour Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Byelections Local politics Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Labour Conservatives news |
British farmers plan more French-style tractor protests this weekend
Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old British farmers plan more French-style tractor protests this weekend This article is more than 1 year old Organisers call for ‘national effort’ to protest against low supermarket prices and cheap imports from post-Brexit deals Farmers unhappy at low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals have vowed to renew their French-style protests with tractors this weekend. Demonstrations modelled on those across the Channel in recent months have sprung up in the UK, most notably in Wales and southern England. On Thursday, Andrew Gibson, a farmer in Kent who has been centrally involved in organising previous actions, said more were to come. “We are definitely taking some action this weekend and we are calling on others to try to join us and to do their own thing as well. It needs to be a national effort because it’s not all about us; it’s about the industry as a whole,” said Gibson. Last Friday night, he and his brother organised farmers for a go-slow protest that caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover . Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Read more Activists in several parts of Wales have held a series of protests, including parking tractors outside the constituency office of the rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, and blaring their horns, according to a Farmers Weekly report. Gibson said the next protest in Kent would “hopefully be bigger numbers and it will be tractors, and we will be trying to get better messaging out about what we are trying to achieve”. “The whole industry is on its knees, to be honest,” he said. “The dairy boys, the arable boys, the whole industry. We are just getting clobbered by the supermarkets, by the government, by post-Brexit trade deals, by imports of cheap rubbish. We are getting it from everywhere.” He and other activists have addressed the British public at large, saying: “We, as farmers, take great pride in growing your food. We are so proud to produce the safest and best quality food in the world. “We understand that many of you already actively choose to buy British, and we thank you for that. We also understand that, for many feeling the cost of living crisis, buying British is not always easy. Cheaper imported food gives you the chance to feed your family for less. “What we ask is that you consider why it is cheaper. How can food from the other side of the world be cheaper? What chemicals are being used that are banned in the UK?” The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial Read more Their protests are inspired by those in France . Last month, farmers used tractors to stop traffic on eight main motorways into Paris in a row over regulations, pay and taxes. The protests have been taking place for months, starting with some young farmers turning town and village road signs upside down, and escalating in recent weeks into large-scale action. Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, said: “We share European farmers’ concerns and frustration. Years of unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather are putting farming families under mounting pressure. “But the British public have demonstrated invaluable support. In 2020, more than a million people signed the NFU’s petition to safeguard British food and farming standards which led to greater government scrutiny over trade deals. And, in 2023, nearly 50,000 signatures led to the prime minister hosting a food security summit. We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests or blockading public roads should always be a last resort.” Explore more on these topics Farming Brexit France Kent Wales news Share Reuse this content Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old British farmers plan more French-style tractor protests this weekend This article is more than 1 year old Organisers call for ‘national effort’ to protest against low supermarket prices and cheap imports from post-Brexit deals Farmers unhappy at low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals have vowed to renew their French-style protests with tractors this weekend. Demonstrations modelled on those across the Channel in recent months have sprung up in the UK, most notably in Wales and southern England. On Thursday, Andrew Gibson, a farmer in Kent who has been centrally involved in organising previous actions, said more were to come. “We are definitely taking some action this weekend and we are calling on others to try to join us and to do their own thing as well. It needs to be a national effort because it’s not all about us; it’s about the industry as a whole,” said Gibson. Last Friday night, he and his brother organised farmers for a go-slow protest that caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover . Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Read more Activists in several parts of Wales have held a series of protests, including parking tractors outside the constituency office of the rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, and blaring their horns, according to a Farmers Weekly report. Gibson said the next protest in Kent would “hopefully be bigger numbers and it will be tractors, and we will be trying to get better messaging out about what we are trying to achieve”. “The whole industry is on its knees, to be honest,” he said. “The dairy boys, the arable boys, the whole industry. We are just getting clobbered by the supermarkets, by the government, by post-Brexit trade deals, by imports of cheap rubbish. We are getting it from everywhere.” He and other activists have addressed the British public at large, saying: “We, as farmers, take great pride in growing your food. We are so proud to produce the safest and best quality food in the world. “We understand that many of you already actively choose to buy British, and we thank you for that. We also understand that, for many feeling the cost of living crisis, buying British is not always easy. Cheaper imported food gives you the chance to feed your family for less. “What we ask is that you consider why it is cheaper. How can food from the other side of the world be cheaper? What chemicals are being used that are banned in the UK?” The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial Read more Their protests are inspired by those in France . Last month, farmers used tractors to stop traffic on eight main motorways into Paris in a row over regulations, pay and taxes. The protests have been taking place for months, starting with some young farmers turning town and village road signs upside down, and escalating in recent weeks into large-scale action. Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, said: “We share European farmers’ concerns and frustration. Years of unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather are putting farming families under mounting pressure. “But the British public have demonstrated invaluable support. In 2020, more than a million people signed the NFU’s petition to safeguard British food and farming standards which led to greater government scrutiny over trade deals. And, in 2023, nearly 50,000 signatures led to the prime minister hosting a food security summit. We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests or blockading public roads should always be a last resort.” Explore more on these topics Farming Brexit France Kent Wales news Share Reuse this content Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA View image in fullscreen Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Farmers took part in a go-slow using tractors near the Port of Dover last week. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA This article is more than 1 year old British farmers plan more French-style tractor protests this weekend This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old British farmers plan more French-style tractor protests this weekend This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old British farmers plan more French-style tractor protests this weekend This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Organisers call for ‘national effort’ to protest against low supermarket prices and cheap imports from post-Brexit deals Organisers call for ‘national effort’ to protest against low supermarket prices and cheap imports from post-Brexit deals Organisers call for ‘national effort’ to protest against low supermarket prices and cheap imports from post-Brexit deals Farmers unhappy at low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals have vowed to renew their French-style protests with tractors this weekend. Demonstrations modelled on those across the Channel in recent months have sprung up in the UK, most notably in Wales and southern England. On Thursday, Andrew Gibson, a farmer in Kent who has been centrally involved in organising previous actions, said more were to come. “We are definitely taking some action this weekend and we are calling on others to try to join us and to do their own thing as well. It needs to be a national effort because it’s not all about us; it’s about the industry as a whole,” said Gibson. Last Friday night, he and his brother organised farmers for a go-slow protest that caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover . Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Read more Activists in several parts of Wales have held a series of protests, including parking tractors outside the constituency office of the rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, and blaring their horns, according to a Farmers Weekly report. Gibson said the next protest in Kent would “hopefully be bigger numbers and it will be tractors, and we will be trying to get better messaging out about what we are trying to achieve”. “The whole industry is on its knees, to be honest,” he said. “The dairy boys, the arable boys, the whole industry. We are just getting clobbered by the supermarkets, by the government, by post-Brexit trade deals, by imports of cheap rubbish. We are getting it from everywhere.” He and other activists have addressed the British public at large, saying: “We, as farmers, take great pride in growing your food. We are so proud to produce the safest and best quality food in the world. “We understand that many of you already actively choose to buy British, and we thank you for that. We also understand that, for many feeling the cost of living crisis, buying British is not always easy. Cheaper imported food gives you the chance to feed your family for less. “What we ask is that you consider why it is cheaper. How can food from the other side of the world be cheaper? What chemicals are being used that are banned in the UK?” The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial Read more Their protests are inspired by those in France . Last month, farmers used tractors to stop traffic on eight main motorways into Paris in a row over regulations, pay and taxes. The protests have been taking place for months, starting with some young farmers turning town and village road signs upside down, and escalating in recent weeks into large-scale action. Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, said: “We share European farmers’ concerns and frustration. Years of unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather are putting farming families under mounting pressure. “But the British public have demonstrated invaluable support. In 2020, more than a million people signed the NFU’s petition to safeguard British food and farming standards which led to greater government scrutiny over trade deals. And, in 2023, nearly 50,000 signatures led to the prime minister hosting a food security summit. We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests or blockading public roads should always be a last resort.” Explore more on these topics Farming Brexit France Kent Wales news Share Reuse this content Farmers unhappy at low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals have vowed to renew their French-style protests with tractors this weekend. Demonstrations modelled on those across the Channel in recent months have sprung up in the UK, most notably in Wales and southern England. On Thursday, Andrew Gibson, a farmer in Kent who has been centrally involved in organising previous actions, said more were to come. “We are definitely taking some action this weekend and we are calling on others to try to join us and to do their own thing as well. It needs to be a national effort because it’s not all about us; it’s about the industry as a whole,” said Gibson. Last Friday night, he and his brother organised farmers for a go-slow protest that caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover . Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Read more Activists in several parts of Wales have held a series of protests, including parking tractors outside the constituency office of the rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, and blaring their horns, according to a Farmers Weekly report. Gibson said the next protest in Kent would “hopefully be bigger numbers and it will be tractors, and we will be trying to get better messaging out about what we are trying to achieve”. “The whole industry is on its knees, to be honest,” he said. “The dairy boys, the arable boys, the whole industry. We are just getting clobbered by the supermarkets, by the government, by post-Brexit trade deals, by imports of cheap rubbish. We are getting it from everywhere.” He and other activists have addressed the British public at large, saying: “We, as farmers, take great pride in growing your food. We are so proud to produce the safest and best quality food in the world. “We understand that many of you already actively choose to buy British, and we thank you for that. We also understand that, for many feeling the cost of living crisis, buying British is not always easy. Cheaper imported food gives you the chance to feed your family for less. “What we ask is that you consider why it is cheaper. How can food from the other side of the world be cheaper? What chemicals are being used that are banned in the UK?” The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial Read more Their protests are inspired by those in France . Last month, farmers used tractors to stop traffic on eight main motorways into Paris in a row over regulations, pay and taxes. The protests have been taking place for months, starting with some young farmers turning town and village road signs upside down, and escalating in recent weeks into large-scale action. Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, said: “We share European farmers’ concerns and frustration. Years of unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather are putting farming families under mounting pressure. “But the British public have demonstrated invaluable support. In 2020, more than a million people signed the NFU’s petition to safeguard British food and farming standards which led to greater government scrutiny over trade deals. And, in 2023, nearly 50,000 signatures led to the prime minister hosting a food security summit. We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests or blockading public roads should always be a last resort.” Explore more on these topics Farming Brexit France Kent Wales news Share Reuse this content Farmers unhappy at low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals have vowed to renew their French-style protests with tractors this weekend. Demonstrations modelled on those across the Channel in recent months have sprung up in the UK, most notably in Wales and southern England. On Thursday, Andrew Gibson, a farmer in Kent who has been centrally involved in organising previous actions, said more were to come. “We are definitely taking some action this weekend and we are calling on others to try to join us and to do their own thing as well. It needs to be a national effort because it’s not all about us; it’s about the industry as a whole,” said Gibson. Last Friday night, he and his brother organised farmers for a go-slow protest that caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover . Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Read more Activists in several parts of Wales have held a series of protests, including parking tractors outside the constituency office of the rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, and blaring their horns, according to a Farmers Weekly report. Gibson said the next protest in Kent would “hopefully be bigger numbers and it will be tractors, and we will be trying to get better messaging out about what we are trying to achieve”. “The whole industry is on its knees, to be honest,” he said. “The dairy boys, the arable boys, the whole industry. We are just getting clobbered by the supermarkets, by the government, by post-Brexit trade deals, by imports of cheap rubbish. We are getting it from everywhere.” He and other activists have addressed the British public at large, saying: “We, as farmers, take great pride in growing your food. We are so proud to produce the safest and best quality food in the world. “We understand that many of you already actively choose to buy British, and we thank you for that. We also understand that, for many feeling the cost of living crisis, buying British is not always easy. Cheaper imported food gives you the chance to feed your family for less. “What we ask is that you consider why it is cheaper. How can food from the other side of the world be cheaper? What chemicals are being used that are banned in the UK?” The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial Read more Their protests are inspired by those in France . Last month, farmers used tractors to stop traffic on eight main motorways into Paris in a row over regulations, pay and taxes. The protests have been taking place for months, starting with some young farmers turning town and village road signs upside down, and escalating in recent weeks into large-scale action. Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, said: “We share European farmers’ concerns and frustration. Years of unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather are putting farming families under mounting pressure. “But the British public have demonstrated invaluable support. In 2020, more than a million people signed the NFU’s petition to safeguard British food and farming standards which led to greater government scrutiny over trade deals. And, in 2023, nearly 50,000 signatures led to the prime minister hosting a food security summit. We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests or blockading public roads should always be a last resort.” Farmers unhappy at low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals have vowed to renew their French-style protests with tractors this weekend. Demonstrations modelled on those across the Channel in recent months have sprung up in the UK, most notably in Wales and southern England. On Thursday, Andrew Gibson, a farmer in Kent who has been centrally involved in organising previous actions, said more were to come. “We are definitely taking some action this weekend and we are calling on others to try to join us and to do their own thing as well. It needs to be a national effort because it’s not all about us; it’s about the industry as a whole,” said Gibson. Last Friday night, he and his brother organised farmers for a go-slow protest that caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover . Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Read more Activists in several parts of Wales have held a series of protests, including parking tractors outside the constituency office of the rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, and blaring their horns, according to a Farmers Weekly report. Gibson said the next protest in Kent would “hopefully be bigger numbers and it will be tractors, and we will be trying to get better messaging out about what we are trying to achieve”. “The whole industry is on its knees, to be honest,” he said. “The dairy boys, the arable boys, the whole industry. We are just getting clobbered by the supermarkets, by the government, by post-Brexit trade deals, by imports of cheap rubbish. We are getting it from everywhere.” He and other activists have addressed the British public at large, saying: “We, as farmers, take great pride in growing your food. We are so proud to produce the safest and best quality food in the world. “We understand that many of you already actively choose to buy British, and we thank you for that. We also understand that, for many feeling the cost of living crisis, buying British is not always easy. Cheaper imported food gives you the chance to feed your family for less. “What we ask is that you consider why it is cheaper. How can food from the other side of the world be cheaper? What chemicals are being used that are banned in the UK?” The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial Read more Their protests are inspired by those in France . Last month, farmers used tractors to stop traffic on eight main motorways into Paris in a row over regulations, pay and taxes. The protests have been taking place for months, starting with some young farmers turning town and village road signs upside down, and escalating in recent weeks into large-scale action. Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, said: “We share European farmers’ concerns and frustration. Years of unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather are putting farming families under mounting pressure. “But the British public have demonstrated invaluable support. In 2020, more than a million people signed the NFU’s petition to safeguard British food and farming standards which led to greater government scrutiny over trade deals. And, in 2023, nearly 50,000 signatures led to the prime minister hosting a food security summit. We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests or blockading public roads should always be a last resort.” Farmers unhappy at low supermarket prices and cheap food imports from post-Brexit trade deals have vowed to renew their French-style protests with tractors this weekend. Demonstrations modelled on those across the Channel in recent months have sprung up in the UK, most notably in Wales and southern England. On Thursday, Andrew Gibson, a farmer in Kent who has been centrally involved in organising previous actions, said more were to come. “We are definitely taking some action this weekend and we are calling on others to try to join us and to do their own thing as well. It needs to be a national effort because it’s not all about us; it’s about the industry as a whole,” said Gibson. Last Friday night, he and his brother organised farmers for a go-slow protest that caused traffic jams around the Port of Dover . Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Read more Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Read more Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Read more Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Tractor blockade disrupts operations at Belgian port of Antwerp Activists in several parts of Wales have held a series of protests, including parking tractors outside the constituency office of the rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, and blaring their horns, according to a Farmers Weekly report. Gibson said the next protest in Kent would “hopefully be bigger numbers and it will be tractors, and we will be trying to get better messaging out about what we are trying to achieve”. “The whole industry is on its knees, to be honest,” he said. “The dairy boys, the arable boys, the whole industry. We are just getting clobbered by the supermarkets, by the government, by post-Brexit trade deals, by imports of cheap rubbish. We are getting it from everywhere.” He and other activists have addressed the British public at large, saying: “We, as farmers, take great pride in growing your food. We are so proud to produce the safest and best quality food in the world. “We understand that many of you already actively choose to buy British, and we thank you for that. We also understand that, for many feeling the cost of living crisis, buying British is not always easy. Cheaper imported food gives you the chance to feed your family for less. “What we ask is that you consider why it is cheaper. How can food from the other side of the world be cheaper? What chemicals are being used that are banned in the UK?” The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial Read more The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial Read more The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial Read more The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial The Guardian view on Europe’s rural revolt: sustainability is in farmers’ interests too | Editorial Their protests are inspired by those in France . Last month, farmers used tractors to stop traffic on eight main motorways into Paris in a row over regulations, pay and taxes. The protests have been taking place for months, starting with some young farmers turning town and village road signs upside down, and escalating in recent weeks into large-scale action. Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, said: “We share European farmers’ concerns and frustration. Years of unsustainably high production costs and crop losses because of extreme weather are putting farming families under mounting pressure. “But the British public have demonstrated invaluable support. In 2020, more than a million people signed the NFU’s petition to safeguard British food and farming standards which led to greater government scrutiny over trade deals. And, in 2023, nearly 50,000 signatures led to the prime minister hosting a food security summit. We do not take this support or its influence for granted, and it’s why protests or blockading public roads should always be a last resort.” Explore more on these topics Farming Brexit France Kent Wales news Share Reuse this content Farming Brexit France Kent Wales news |
House Republicans subpoena Harvard brass in campus antisemitism inquiry
Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old House Republicans subpoena Harvard brass in campus antisemitism inquiry This article is more than 1 year old Request comes six weeks after lawmakers grilled school president Claudine Gay, who lost her job in aftermath of contentious hearing Republicans in Congress have escalated their fight with Harvard University by issuing subpoenas to university leaders, six weeks after hearings into antisemitism on campus set in motion the resignation of Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay . Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Read more Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina who heads the House education and workforce committee that held hearings into the issue last year, ordered Harvard’s trustees to produce documents related to the issue. Foxx accused the Ivy League university of failing to treat the inquiry into antisemitism with “appropriate seriousness” and of failing to satisfy previous requests for information. “I will not tolerate delay and defiance of our investigation while Harvard’s Jewish students continue to endure the firestorm of antisemitism that has engulfed its campus,” she wrote. “Given Harvard’s vast resources and the urgency with which it should be addressing the scourge of antisemitism, the evidence suggests that the school is obstructing this investigation and is willing to tolerate the proliferation of antisemitism on its campus.” According to Bloomberg, subpoenas for information were issued to Harvard’s interim president, Alan Garber; board of trustees chair Penny Pritzker; and Narv Narvekar, CEO of Harvard’s $51bn endowment. In a statement, Harvard said it had already responded “extensively and in good faith” to congressional demands, including by submitting 3,500 pages of documents. Harvard spokesperson Jonathan Swain wrote that a subpoena was “unwarranted” but said Harvard “remains committed to cooperating with the Committee”. A separate inquiry by House Republicans is looking into whether failures to condemn antisemitism could affect the tax-exempt status of Harvard and other universities. The issue flared up in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, when a number of student bodies at Harvard and other universities appeared to condemn Israel without acknowledging the attack. According to the Harvard Crimson, the subpoenas seek documents and communications regarding Harvard’s response to a controversial pro-Palestine letter signed by more than 30 student groups, the Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Committee’s “Israeli Apartheid Week” , and an altercation at an 18 October “die-in” at Harvard Business School. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Those led to claims that university heads were allowing free speech and protest rights on campus to become entangled with antisemitism, and triggered a subsequent revolt by some powerful Harvard donors as well as the appearance of “doxing” trucks on campus, calling out students who signed the pro-Palestinian letters. At congressional hearings in December, Gay and the University of Pennsylvania’s president, Liz Magill, were accused by some of failing to denounce antisemitism clearly enough and of equivocating over “context”. The resulting outrage led first to Magill resigning and then Gay, after a firestorm of plagiarism allegations against her. Many academics voiced resistance to the committee’s demands. Paul Reville, a professor of education policy and administration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said in a January interview with the Harvard newspaper that the Republican-led requests “in the view of some people border on harassment from Congress and other sources who clearly have an agenda to undermine universities like Harvard”. Explore more on these topics Harvard University House of Representatives Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Higher education US Congress US politics news Share Reuse this content Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old House Republicans subpoena Harvard brass in campus antisemitism inquiry This article is more than 1 year old Request comes six weeks after lawmakers grilled school president Claudine Gay, who lost her job in aftermath of contentious hearing Republicans in Congress have escalated their fight with Harvard University by issuing subpoenas to university leaders, six weeks after hearings into antisemitism on campus set in motion the resignation of Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay . Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Read more Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina who heads the House education and workforce committee that held hearings into the issue last year, ordered Harvard’s trustees to produce documents related to the issue. Foxx accused the Ivy League university of failing to treat the inquiry into antisemitism with “appropriate seriousness” and of failing to satisfy previous requests for information. “I will not tolerate delay and defiance of our investigation while Harvard’s Jewish students continue to endure the firestorm of antisemitism that has engulfed its campus,” she wrote. “Given Harvard’s vast resources and the urgency with which it should be addressing the scourge of antisemitism, the evidence suggests that the school is obstructing this investigation and is willing to tolerate the proliferation of antisemitism on its campus.” According to Bloomberg, subpoenas for information were issued to Harvard’s interim president, Alan Garber; board of trustees chair Penny Pritzker; and Narv Narvekar, CEO of Harvard’s $51bn endowment. In a statement, Harvard said it had already responded “extensively and in good faith” to congressional demands, including by submitting 3,500 pages of documents. Harvard spokesperson Jonathan Swain wrote that a subpoena was “unwarranted” but said Harvard “remains committed to cooperating with the Committee”. A separate inquiry by House Republicans is looking into whether failures to condemn antisemitism could affect the tax-exempt status of Harvard and other universities. The issue flared up in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, when a number of student bodies at Harvard and other universities appeared to condemn Israel without acknowledging the attack. According to the Harvard Crimson, the subpoenas seek documents and communications regarding Harvard’s response to a controversial pro-Palestine letter signed by more than 30 student groups, the Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Committee’s “Israeli Apartheid Week” , and an altercation at an 18 October “die-in” at Harvard Business School. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Those led to claims that university heads were allowing free speech and protest rights on campus to become entangled with antisemitism, and triggered a subsequent revolt by some powerful Harvard donors as well as the appearance of “doxing” trucks on campus, calling out students who signed the pro-Palestinian letters. At congressional hearings in December, Gay and the University of Pennsylvania’s president, Liz Magill, were accused by some of failing to denounce antisemitism clearly enough and of equivocating over “context”. The resulting outrage led first to Magill resigning and then Gay, after a firestorm of plagiarism allegations against her. Many academics voiced resistance to the committee’s demands. Paul Reville, a professor of education policy and administration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said in a January interview with the Harvard newspaper that the Republican-led requests “in the view of some people border on harassment from Congress and other sources who clearly have an agenda to undermine universities like Harvard”. Explore more on these topics Harvard University House of Representatives Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Higher education US Congress US politics news Share Reuse this content Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images Protests in support of Palestine on the Harvard campus, such as the one pictured on 14 October 2023, sparked charges of antisemitism. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old House Republicans subpoena Harvard brass in campus antisemitism inquiry This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old House Republicans subpoena Harvard brass in campus antisemitism inquiry This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old House Republicans subpoena Harvard brass in campus antisemitism inquiry This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Request comes six weeks after lawmakers grilled school president Claudine Gay, who lost her job in aftermath of contentious hearing Request comes six weeks after lawmakers grilled school president Claudine Gay, who lost her job in aftermath of contentious hearing Request comes six weeks after lawmakers grilled school president Claudine Gay, who lost her job in aftermath of contentious hearing Republicans in Congress have escalated their fight with Harvard University by issuing subpoenas to university leaders, six weeks after hearings into antisemitism on campus set in motion the resignation of Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay . Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Read more Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina who heads the House education and workforce committee that held hearings into the issue last year, ordered Harvard’s trustees to produce documents related to the issue. Foxx accused the Ivy League university of failing to treat the inquiry into antisemitism with “appropriate seriousness” and of failing to satisfy previous requests for information. “I will not tolerate delay and defiance of our investigation while Harvard’s Jewish students continue to endure the firestorm of antisemitism that has engulfed its campus,” she wrote. “Given Harvard’s vast resources and the urgency with which it should be addressing the scourge of antisemitism, the evidence suggests that the school is obstructing this investigation and is willing to tolerate the proliferation of antisemitism on its campus.” According to Bloomberg, subpoenas for information were issued to Harvard’s interim president, Alan Garber; board of trustees chair Penny Pritzker; and Narv Narvekar, CEO of Harvard’s $51bn endowment. In a statement, Harvard said it had already responded “extensively and in good faith” to congressional demands, including by submitting 3,500 pages of documents. Harvard spokesperson Jonathan Swain wrote that a subpoena was “unwarranted” but said Harvard “remains committed to cooperating with the Committee”. A separate inquiry by House Republicans is looking into whether failures to condemn antisemitism could affect the tax-exempt status of Harvard and other universities. The issue flared up in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, when a number of student bodies at Harvard and other universities appeared to condemn Israel without acknowledging the attack. According to the Harvard Crimson, the subpoenas seek documents and communications regarding Harvard’s response to a controversial pro-Palestine letter signed by more than 30 student groups, the Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Committee’s “Israeli Apartheid Week” , and an altercation at an 18 October “die-in” at Harvard Business School. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Those led to claims that university heads were allowing free speech and protest rights on campus to become entangled with antisemitism, and triggered a subsequent revolt by some powerful Harvard donors as well as the appearance of “doxing” trucks on campus, calling out students who signed the pro-Palestinian letters. At congressional hearings in December, Gay and the University of Pennsylvania’s president, Liz Magill, were accused by some of failing to denounce antisemitism clearly enough and of equivocating over “context”. The resulting outrage led first to Magill resigning and then Gay, after a firestorm of plagiarism allegations against her. Many academics voiced resistance to the committee’s demands. Paul Reville, a professor of education policy and administration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said in a January interview with the Harvard newspaper that the Republican-led requests “in the view of some people border on harassment from Congress and other sources who clearly have an agenda to undermine universities like Harvard”. Explore more on these topics Harvard University House of Representatives Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Higher education US Congress US politics news Share Reuse this content Republicans in Congress have escalated their fight with Harvard University by issuing subpoenas to university leaders, six weeks after hearings into antisemitism on campus set in motion the resignation of Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay . Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Read more Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina who heads the House education and workforce committee that held hearings into the issue last year, ordered Harvard’s trustees to produce documents related to the issue. Foxx accused the Ivy League university of failing to treat the inquiry into antisemitism with “appropriate seriousness” and of failing to satisfy previous requests for information. “I will not tolerate delay and defiance of our investigation while Harvard’s Jewish students continue to endure the firestorm of antisemitism that has engulfed its campus,” she wrote. “Given Harvard’s vast resources and the urgency with which it should be addressing the scourge of antisemitism, the evidence suggests that the school is obstructing this investigation and is willing to tolerate the proliferation of antisemitism on its campus.” According to Bloomberg, subpoenas for information were issued to Harvard’s interim president, Alan Garber; board of trustees chair Penny Pritzker; and Narv Narvekar, CEO of Harvard’s $51bn endowment. In a statement, Harvard said it had already responded “extensively and in good faith” to congressional demands, including by submitting 3,500 pages of documents. Harvard spokesperson Jonathan Swain wrote that a subpoena was “unwarranted” but said Harvard “remains committed to cooperating with the Committee”. A separate inquiry by House Republicans is looking into whether failures to condemn antisemitism could affect the tax-exempt status of Harvard and other universities. The issue flared up in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, when a number of student bodies at Harvard and other universities appeared to condemn Israel without acknowledging the attack. According to the Harvard Crimson, the subpoenas seek documents and communications regarding Harvard’s response to a controversial pro-Palestine letter signed by more than 30 student groups, the Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Committee’s “Israeli Apartheid Week” , and an altercation at an 18 October “die-in” at Harvard Business School. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Those led to claims that university heads were allowing free speech and protest rights on campus to become entangled with antisemitism, and triggered a subsequent revolt by some powerful Harvard donors as well as the appearance of “doxing” trucks on campus, calling out students who signed the pro-Palestinian letters. At congressional hearings in December, Gay and the University of Pennsylvania’s president, Liz Magill, were accused by some of failing to denounce antisemitism clearly enough and of equivocating over “context”. The resulting outrage led first to Magill resigning and then Gay, after a firestorm of plagiarism allegations against her. Many academics voiced resistance to the committee’s demands. Paul Reville, a professor of education policy and administration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said in a January interview with the Harvard newspaper that the Republican-led requests “in the view of some people border on harassment from Congress and other sources who clearly have an agenda to undermine universities like Harvard”. Explore more on these topics Harvard University House of Representatives Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Higher education US Congress US politics news Share Reuse this content Republicans in Congress have escalated their fight with Harvard University by issuing subpoenas to university leaders, six weeks after hearings into antisemitism on campus set in motion the resignation of Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay . Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Read more Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina who heads the House education and workforce committee that held hearings into the issue last year, ordered Harvard’s trustees to produce documents related to the issue. Foxx accused the Ivy League university of failing to treat the inquiry into antisemitism with “appropriate seriousness” and of failing to satisfy previous requests for information. “I will not tolerate delay and defiance of our investigation while Harvard’s Jewish students continue to endure the firestorm of antisemitism that has engulfed its campus,” she wrote. “Given Harvard’s vast resources and the urgency with which it should be addressing the scourge of antisemitism, the evidence suggests that the school is obstructing this investigation and is willing to tolerate the proliferation of antisemitism on its campus.” According to Bloomberg, subpoenas for information were issued to Harvard’s interim president, Alan Garber; board of trustees chair Penny Pritzker; and Narv Narvekar, CEO of Harvard’s $51bn endowment. In a statement, Harvard said it had already responded “extensively and in good faith” to congressional demands, including by submitting 3,500 pages of documents. Harvard spokesperson Jonathan Swain wrote that a subpoena was “unwarranted” but said Harvard “remains committed to cooperating with the Committee”. A separate inquiry by House Republicans is looking into whether failures to condemn antisemitism could affect the tax-exempt status of Harvard and other universities. The issue flared up in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, when a number of student bodies at Harvard and other universities appeared to condemn Israel without acknowledging the attack. According to the Harvard Crimson, the subpoenas seek documents and communications regarding Harvard’s response to a controversial pro-Palestine letter signed by more than 30 student groups, the Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Committee’s “Israeli Apartheid Week” , and an altercation at an 18 October “die-in” at Harvard Business School. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Those led to claims that university heads were allowing free speech and protest rights on campus to become entangled with antisemitism, and triggered a subsequent revolt by some powerful Harvard donors as well as the appearance of “doxing” trucks on campus, calling out students who signed the pro-Palestinian letters. At congressional hearings in December, Gay and the University of Pennsylvania’s president, Liz Magill, were accused by some of failing to denounce antisemitism clearly enough and of equivocating over “context”. The resulting outrage led first to Magill resigning and then Gay, after a firestorm of plagiarism allegations against her. Many academics voiced resistance to the committee’s demands. Paul Reville, a professor of education policy and administration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said in a January interview with the Harvard newspaper that the Republican-led requests “in the view of some people border on harassment from Congress and other sources who clearly have an agenda to undermine universities like Harvard”. Republicans in Congress have escalated their fight with Harvard University by issuing subpoenas to university leaders, six weeks after hearings into antisemitism on campus set in motion the resignation of Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay . Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Read more Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina who heads the House education and workforce committee that held hearings into the issue last year, ordered Harvard’s trustees to produce documents related to the issue. Foxx accused the Ivy League university of failing to treat the inquiry into antisemitism with “appropriate seriousness” and of failing to satisfy previous requests for information. “I will not tolerate delay and defiance of our investigation while Harvard’s Jewish students continue to endure the firestorm of antisemitism that has engulfed its campus,” she wrote. “Given Harvard’s vast resources and the urgency with which it should be addressing the scourge of antisemitism, the evidence suggests that the school is obstructing this investigation and is willing to tolerate the proliferation of antisemitism on its campus.” According to Bloomberg, subpoenas for information were issued to Harvard’s interim president, Alan Garber; board of trustees chair Penny Pritzker; and Narv Narvekar, CEO of Harvard’s $51bn endowment. In a statement, Harvard said it had already responded “extensively and in good faith” to congressional demands, including by submitting 3,500 pages of documents. Harvard spokesperson Jonathan Swain wrote that a subpoena was “unwarranted” but said Harvard “remains committed to cooperating with the Committee”. A separate inquiry by House Republicans is looking into whether failures to condemn antisemitism could affect the tax-exempt status of Harvard and other universities. The issue flared up in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, when a number of student bodies at Harvard and other universities appeared to condemn Israel without acknowledging the attack. According to the Harvard Crimson, the subpoenas seek documents and communications regarding Harvard’s response to a controversial pro-Palestine letter signed by more than 30 student groups, the Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Committee’s “Israeli Apartheid Week” , and an altercation at an 18 October “die-in” at Harvard Business School. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Those led to claims that university heads were allowing free speech and protest rights on campus to become entangled with antisemitism, and triggered a subsequent revolt by some powerful Harvard donors as well as the appearance of “doxing” trucks on campus, calling out students who signed the pro-Palestinian letters. At congressional hearings in December, Gay and the University of Pennsylvania’s president, Liz Magill, were accused by some of failing to denounce antisemitism clearly enough and of equivocating over “context”. The resulting outrage led first to Magill resigning and then Gay, after a firestorm of plagiarism allegations against her. Many academics voiced resistance to the committee’s demands. Paul Reville, a professor of education policy and administration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said in a January interview with the Harvard newspaper that the Republican-led requests “in the view of some people border on harassment from Congress and other sources who clearly have an agenda to undermine universities like Harvard”. Republicans in Congress have escalated their fight with Harvard University by issuing subpoenas to university leaders, six weeks after hearings into antisemitism on campus set in motion the resignation of Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay . Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Read more Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Read more Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Read more Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina who heads the House education and workforce committee that held hearings into the issue last year, ordered Harvard’s trustees to produce documents related to the issue. Foxx accused the Ivy League university of failing to treat the inquiry into antisemitism with “appropriate seriousness” and of failing to satisfy previous requests for information. “I will not tolerate delay and defiance of our investigation while Harvard’s Jewish students continue to endure the firestorm of antisemitism that has engulfed its campus,” she wrote. “Given Harvard’s vast resources and the urgency with which it should be addressing the scourge of antisemitism, the evidence suggests that the school is obstructing this investigation and is willing to tolerate the proliferation of antisemitism on its campus.” According to Bloomberg, subpoenas for information were issued to Harvard’s interim president, Alan Garber; board of trustees chair Penny Pritzker; and Narv Narvekar, CEO of Harvard’s $51bn endowment. In a statement, Harvard said it had already responded “extensively and in good faith” to congressional demands, including by submitting 3,500 pages of documents. Harvard spokesperson Jonathan Swain wrote that a subpoena was “unwarranted” but said Harvard “remains committed to cooperating with the Committee”. A separate inquiry by House Republicans is looking into whether failures to condemn antisemitism could affect the tax-exempt status of Harvard and other universities. The issue flared up in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, when a number of student bodies at Harvard and other universities appeared to condemn Israel without acknowledging the attack. According to the Harvard Crimson, the subpoenas seek documents and communications regarding Harvard’s response to a controversial pro-Palestine letter signed by more than 30 student groups, the Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Committee’s “Israeli Apartheid Week” , and an altercation at an 18 October “die-in” at Harvard Business School. Those led to claims that university heads were allowing free speech and protest rights on campus to become entangled with antisemitism, and triggered a subsequent revolt by some powerful Harvard donors as well as the appearance of “doxing” trucks on campus, calling out students who signed the pro-Palestinian letters. At congressional hearings in December, Gay and the University of Pennsylvania’s president, Liz Magill, were accused by some of failing to denounce antisemitism clearly enough and of equivocating over “context”. The resulting outrage led first to Magill resigning and then Gay, after a firestorm of plagiarism allegations against her. Many academics voiced resistance to the committee’s demands. Paul Reville, a professor of education policy and administration at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said in a January interview with the Harvard newspaper that the Republican-led requests “in the view of some people border on harassment from Congress and other sources who clearly have an agenda to undermine universities like Harvard”. Explore more on these topics Harvard University House of Representatives Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Higher education US Congress US politics news Share Reuse this content Harvard University House of Representatives Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Higher education US Congress US politics news |
Keir Starmer is the king of the monster swings, beating Blair and Thatcher
Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty View image in fullscreen Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Keir Starmer is the king of the monster swings, beating Blair and Thatcher This article is more than 1 year old Lewis Baston The Wellingborough byelection was the Labour leader’s fourth mammoth turnaround, as the Tories suffered a record fall UK politics live – latest updates The Wellingborough byelection is one for the record books. The fall in the Conservative share of the vote – an enormous 37.6 percentage points – was the worst the party has ever suffered in a byelection. The previous record, established in Liverpool Wavertree in 1935, had stood for nearly 90 years, but the swing of 28.5 percentage points from Conservative to Labour was the second-highest since the 1930s, after Tony Blair’s triumph in Dudley West in 1994. It came on the heels of other Labour gains in the last year with monster-sized swings of more than 20 points: Selby and Ainsty, Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire. Thatcher and Blair in opposition managed two such gains each; Starmer has notched up four. The swing to Labour in Kingswood was much less spectacular than in Wellingborough, but still a perfectly respectable 16.4 points, in the same bracket as byelections in Wirral South (1997) and Norwich North (2009), each of which took place less than a year before a change of government. It was approximately what one would expect given the national polls show a Labour lead approaching 20 points. The difference between the swings must owe something to the Conservatives’ choice of candidates for each seat: the partner of the disgraced former MP in Wellingborough and a well-liked local councillor in Kingswood. It also reflects the fact that Labour had fallen further in recent elections, and therefore had more room for improvement, in Wellingborough. The two results together, late in the government’s term, show that the polls are not wrong in pointing to a big swing from Conservative to Labour and that the government is approaching the next election in very bad shape. The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee Read more There are other electoral trends worth noting. One is that turnout is declining. The turnout in both byelections was poor, worse than Mid Bedfordshire last October but slightly better than Tamworth. The fall in Kingswood, usually a constituency with high participation, was particularly large, perhaps because of bad weather on polling day. While many of the missing voters will be former Conservatives, abstention is a form of protest and the Tories cannot count on persuading them to return when the general election takes place. It seems likely that the next election, like 1997, will see a significant fall in turnout alongside a big drop in the Conservative vote. Reform UK fared reasonably in both byelections, although 10% in Kingswood and 13% in Wellingborough are a long way short of the results Ukip was achieving in the run-up to the 2015 election. Wellingborough, which voted 63% for leave in the referendum and where the Conservative campaign was in disarray, should have been fertile ground but the campaign never quite took off. As with abstainers, it is foolish for Conservatives in search of a silver lining to lump Reform voters in with the Tories as a rightwing bloc that will come home at the general election; they are protest voters and many of them were expressing strong negative feelings about the government. But the Reform vote will sow discord among the Conservatives about how to respond to defeat. The Greens saved their deposit in Kingswood, not a bad result given the two-party squeeze. This could reflect disappointment over Labour dropping the £28bn package, but it also comes in the context of the environmentalist reasons for Chris Skidmore’s resignation and the credibility of the Greens in the Bristol area. Another point to note is that the Westminster ructions about Labour’s bad week – the policy retreat and the mess over its repudiated candidate in the Rochdale byelection – seems to have made little impact on the voters. The byelections were determined by deeper factors: the recessionary economy, strained public services, the unpopularity of the government and the prime minister, and the strong feeling of “time for a change”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The government is in deep, almost certainly terminal trouble and it is running out of time. Explore more on these topics Byelections Labour analysis Share Reuse this content Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty View image in fullscreen Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Keir Starmer is the king of the monster swings, beating Blair and Thatcher This article is more than 1 year old Lewis Baston The Wellingborough byelection was the Labour leader’s fourth mammoth turnaround, as the Tories suffered a record fall UK politics live – latest updates The Wellingborough byelection is one for the record books. The fall in the Conservative share of the vote – an enormous 37.6 percentage points – was the worst the party has ever suffered in a byelection. The previous record, established in Liverpool Wavertree in 1935, had stood for nearly 90 years, but the swing of 28.5 percentage points from Conservative to Labour was the second-highest since the 1930s, after Tony Blair’s triumph in Dudley West in 1994. It came on the heels of other Labour gains in the last year with monster-sized swings of more than 20 points: Selby and Ainsty, Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire. Thatcher and Blair in opposition managed two such gains each; Starmer has notched up four. The swing to Labour in Kingswood was much less spectacular than in Wellingborough, but still a perfectly respectable 16.4 points, in the same bracket as byelections in Wirral South (1997) and Norwich North (2009), each of which took place less than a year before a change of government. It was approximately what one would expect given the national polls show a Labour lead approaching 20 points. The difference between the swings must owe something to the Conservatives’ choice of candidates for each seat: the partner of the disgraced former MP in Wellingborough and a well-liked local councillor in Kingswood. It also reflects the fact that Labour had fallen further in recent elections, and therefore had more room for improvement, in Wellingborough. The two results together, late in the government’s term, show that the polls are not wrong in pointing to a big swing from Conservative to Labour and that the government is approaching the next election in very bad shape. The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee Read more There are other electoral trends worth noting. One is that turnout is declining. The turnout in both byelections was poor, worse than Mid Bedfordshire last October but slightly better than Tamworth. The fall in Kingswood, usually a constituency with high participation, was particularly large, perhaps because of bad weather on polling day. While many of the missing voters will be former Conservatives, abstention is a form of protest and the Tories cannot count on persuading them to return when the general election takes place. It seems likely that the next election, like 1997, will see a significant fall in turnout alongside a big drop in the Conservative vote. Reform UK fared reasonably in both byelections, although 10% in Kingswood and 13% in Wellingborough are a long way short of the results Ukip was achieving in the run-up to the 2015 election. Wellingborough, which voted 63% for leave in the referendum and where the Conservative campaign was in disarray, should have been fertile ground but the campaign never quite took off. As with abstainers, it is foolish for Conservatives in search of a silver lining to lump Reform voters in with the Tories as a rightwing bloc that will come home at the general election; they are protest voters and many of them were expressing strong negative feelings about the government. But the Reform vote will sow discord among the Conservatives about how to respond to defeat. The Greens saved their deposit in Kingswood, not a bad result given the two-party squeeze. This could reflect disappointment over Labour dropping the £28bn package, but it also comes in the context of the environmentalist reasons for Chris Skidmore’s resignation and the credibility of the Greens in the Bristol area. Another point to note is that the Westminster ructions about Labour’s bad week – the policy retreat and the mess over its repudiated candidate in the Rochdale byelection – seems to have made little impact on the voters. The byelections were determined by deeper factors: the recessionary economy, strained public services, the unpopularity of the government and the prime minister, and the strong feeling of “time for a change”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The government is in deep, almost certainly terminal trouble and it is running out of time. Explore more on these topics Byelections Labour analysis Share Reuse this content Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty View image in fullscreen Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty View image in fullscreen Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty View image in fullscreen Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty View image in fullscreen Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Labour supporters pose for a picture in the Wellingborough constituency. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Keir Starmer is the king of the monster swings, beating Blair and Thatcher This article is more than 1 year old Lewis Baston This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Keir Starmer is the king of the monster swings, beating Blair and Thatcher This article is more than 1 year old Lewis Baston This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Keir Starmer is the king of the monster swings, beating Blair and Thatcher This article is more than 1 year old Lewis Baston This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The Wellingborough byelection was the Labour leader’s fourth mammoth turnaround, as the Tories suffered a record fall UK politics live – latest updates The Wellingborough byelection was the Labour leader’s fourth mammoth turnaround, as the Tories suffered a record fall UK politics live – latest updates The Wellingborough byelection was the Labour leader’s fourth mammoth turnaround, as the Tories suffered a record fall The Wellingborough byelection is one for the record books. The fall in the Conservative share of the vote – an enormous 37.6 percentage points – was the worst the party has ever suffered in a byelection. The previous record, established in Liverpool Wavertree in 1935, had stood for nearly 90 years, but the swing of 28.5 percentage points from Conservative to Labour was the second-highest since the 1930s, after Tony Blair’s triumph in Dudley West in 1994. It came on the heels of other Labour gains in the last year with monster-sized swings of more than 20 points: Selby and Ainsty, Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire. Thatcher and Blair in opposition managed two such gains each; Starmer has notched up four. The swing to Labour in Kingswood was much less spectacular than in Wellingborough, but still a perfectly respectable 16.4 points, in the same bracket as byelections in Wirral South (1997) and Norwich North (2009), each of which took place less than a year before a change of government. It was approximately what one would expect given the national polls show a Labour lead approaching 20 points. The difference between the swings must owe something to the Conservatives’ choice of candidates for each seat: the partner of the disgraced former MP in Wellingborough and a well-liked local councillor in Kingswood. It also reflects the fact that Labour had fallen further in recent elections, and therefore had more room for improvement, in Wellingborough. The two results together, late in the government’s term, show that the polls are not wrong in pointing to a big swing from Conservative to Labour and that the government is approaching the next election in very bad shape. The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee Read more There are other electoral trends worth noting. One is that turnout is declining. The turnout in both byelections was poor, worse than Mid Bedfordshire last October but slightly better than Tamworth. The fall in Kingswood, usually a constituency with high participation, was particularly large, perhaps because of bad weather on polling day. While many of the missing voters will be former Conservatives, abstention is a form of protest and the Tories cannot count on persuading them to return when the general election takes place. It seems likely that the next election, like 1997, will see a significant fall in turnout alongside a big drop in the Conservative vote. Reform UK fared reasonably in both byelections, although 10% in Kingswood and 13% in Wellingborough are a long way short of the results Ukip was achieving in the run-up to the 2015 election. Wellingborough, which voted 63% for leave in the referendum and where the Conservative campaign was in disarray, should have been fertile ground but the campaign never quite took off. As with abstainers, it is foolish for Conservatives in search of a silver lining to lump Reform voters in with the Tories as a rightwing bloc that will come home at the general election; they are protest voters and many of them were expressing strong negative feelings about the government. But the Reform vote will sow discord among the Conservatives about how to respond to defeat. The Greens saved their deposit in Kingswood, not a bad result given the two-party squeeze. This could reflect disappointment over Labour dropping the £28bn package, but it also comes in the context of the environmentalist reasons for Chris Skidmore’s resignation and the credibility of the Greens in the Bristol area. Another point to note is that the Westminster ructions about Labour’s bad week – the policy retreat and the mess over its repudiated candidate in the Rochdale byelection – seems to have made little impact on the voters. The byelections were determined by deeper factors: the recessionary economy, strained public services, the unpopularity of the government and the prime minister, and the strong feeling of “time for a change”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The government is in deep, almost certainly terminal trouble and it is running out of time. Explore more on these topics Byelections Labour analysis Share Reuse this content The Wellingborough byelection is one for the record books. The fall in the Conservative share of the vote – an enormous 37.6 percentage points – was the worst the party has ever suffered in a byelection. The previous record, established in Liverpool Wavertree in 1935, had stood for nearly 90 years, but the swing of 28.5 percentage points from Conservative to Labour was the second-highest since the 1930s, after Tony Blair’s triumph in Dudley West in 1994. It came on the heels of other Labour gains in the last year with monster-sized swings of more than 20 points: Selby and Ainsty, Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire. Thatcher and Blair in opposition managed two such gains each; Starmer has notched up four. The swing to Labour in Kingswood was much less spectacular than in Wellingborough, but still a perfectly respectable 16.4 points, in the same bracket as byelections in Wirral South (1997) and Norwich North (2009), each of which took place less than a year before a change of government. It was approximately what one would expect given the national polls show a Labour lead approaching 20 points. The difference between the swings must owe something to the Conservatives’ choice of candidates for each seat: the partner of the disgraced former MP in Wellingborough and a well-liked local councillor in Kingswood. It also reflects the fact that Labour had fallen further in recent elections, and therefore had more room for improvement, in Wellingborough. The two results together, late in the government’s term, show that the polls are not wrong in pointing to a big swing from Conservative to Labour and that the government is approaching the next election in very bad shape. The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee Read more There are other electoral trends worth noting. One is that turnout is declining. The turnout in both byelections was poor, worse than Mid Bedfordshire last October but slightly better than Tamworth. The fall in Kingswood, usually a constituency with high participation, was particularly large, perhaps because of bad weather on polling day. While many of the missing voters will be former Conservatives, abstention is a form of protest and the Tories cannot count on persuading them to return when the general election takes place. It seems likely that the next election, like 1997, will see a significant fall in turnout alongside a big drop in the Conservative vote. Reform UK fared reasonably in both byelections, although 10% in Kingswood and 13% in Wellingborough are a long way short of the results Ukip was achieving in the run-up to the 2015 election. Wellingborough, which voted 63% for leave in the referendum and where the Conservative campaign was in disarray, should have been fertile ground but the campaign never quite took off. As with abstainers, it is foolish for Conservatives in search of a silver lining to lump Reform voters in with the Tories as a rightwing bloc that will come home at the general election; they are protest voters and many of them were expressing strong negative feelings about the government. But the Reform vote will sow discord among the Conservatives about how to respond to defeat. The Greens saved their deposit in Kingswood, not a bad result given the two-party squeeze. This could reflect disappointment over Labour dropping the £28bn package, but it also comes in the context of the environmentalist reasons for Chris Skidmore’s resignation and the credibility of the Greens in the Bristol area. Another point to note is that the Westminster ructions about Labour’s bad week – the policy retreat and the mess over its repudiated candidate in the Rochdale byelection – seems to have made little impact on the voters. The byelections were determined by deeper factors: the recessionary economy, strained public services, the unpopularity of the government and the prime minister, and the strong feeling of “time for a change”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The government is in deep, almost certainly terminal trouble and it is running out of time. Explore more on these topics Byelections Labour analysis Share Reuse this content The Wellingborough byelection is one for the record books. The fall in the Conservative share of the vote – an enormous 37.6 percentage points – was the worst the party has ever suffered in a byelection. The previous record, established in Liverpool Wavertree in 1935, had stood for nearly 90 years, but the swing of 28.5 percentage points from Conservative to Labour was the second-highest since the 1930s, after Tony Blair’s triumph in Dudley West in 1994. It came on the heels of other Labour gains in the last year with monster-sized swings of more than 20 points: Selby and Ainsty, Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire. Thatcher and Blair in opposition managed two such gains each; Starmer has notched up four. The swing to Labour in Kingswood was much less spectacular than in Wellingborough, but still a perfectly respectable 16.4 points, in the same bracket as byelections in Wirral South (1997) and Norwich North (2009), each of which took place less than a year before a change of government. It was approximately what one would expect given the national polls show a Labour lead approaching 20 points. The difference between the swings must owe something to the Conservatives’ choice of candidates for each seat: the partner of the disgraced former MP in Wellingborough and a well-liked local councillor in Kingswood. It also reflects the fact that Labour had fallen further in recent elections, and therefore had more room for improvement, in Wellingborough. The two results together, late in the government’s term, show that the polls are not wrong in pointing to a big swing from Conservative to Labour and that the government is approaching the next election in very bad shape. The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee Read more There are other electoral trends worth noting. One is that turnout is declining. The turnout in both byelections was poor, worse than Mid Bedfordshire last October but slightly better than Tamworth. The fall in Kingswood, usually a constituency with high participation, was particularly large, perhaps because of bad weather on polling day. While many of the missing voters will be former Conservatives, abstention is a form of protest and the Tories cannot count on persuading them to return when the general election takes place. It seems likely that the next election, like 1997, will see a significant fall in turnout alongside a big drop in the Conservative vote. Reform UK fared reasonably in both byelections, although 10% in Kingswood and 13% in Wellingborough are a long way short of the results Ukip was achieving in the run-up to the 2015 election. Wellingborough, which voted 63% for leave in the referendum and where the Conservative campaign was in disarray, should have been fertile ground but the campaign never quite took off. As with abstainers, it is foolish for Conservatives in search of a silver lining to lump Reform voters in with the Tories as a rightwing bloc that will come home at the general election; they are protest voters and many of them were expressing strong negative feelings about the government. But the Reform vote will sow discord among the Conservatives about how to respond to defeat. The Greens saved their deposit in Kingswood, not a bad result given the two-party squeeze. This could reflect disappointment over Labour dropping the £28bn package, but it also comes in the context of the environmentalist reasons for Chris Skidmore’s resignation and the credibility of the Greens in the Bristol area. Another point to note is that the Westminster ructions about Labour’s bad week – the policy retreat and the mess over its repudiated candidate in the Rochdale byelection – seems to have made little impact on the voters. The byelections were determined by deeper factors: the recessionary economy, strained public services, the unpopularity of the government and the prime minister, and the strong feeling of “time for a change”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The government is in deep, almost certainly terminal trouble and it is running out of time. The Wellingborough byelection is one for the record books. The fall in the Conservative share of the vote – an enormous 37.6 percentage points – was the worst the party has ever suffered in a byelection. The previous record, established in Liverpool Wavertree in 1935, had stood for nearly 90 years, but the swing of 28.5 percentage points from Conservative to Labour was the second-highest since the 1930s, after Tony Blair’s triumph in Dudley West in 1994. It came on the heels of other Labour gains in the last year with monster-sized swings of more than 20 points: Selby and Ainsty, Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire. Thatcher and Blair in opposition managed two such gains each; Starmer has notched up four. The swing to Labour in Kingswood was much less spectacular than in Wellingborough, but still a perfectly respectable 16.4 points, in the same bracket as byelections in Wirral South (1997) and Norwich North (2009), each of which took place less than a year before a change of government. It was approximately what one would expect given the national polls show a Labour lead approaching 20 points. The difference between the swings must owe something to the Conservatives’ choice of candidates for each seat: the partner of the disgraced former MP in Wellingborough and a well-liked local councillor in Kingswood. It also reflects the fact that Labour had fallen further in recent elections, and therefore had more room for improvement, in Wellingborough. The two results together, late in the government’s term, show that the polls are not wrong in pointing to a big swing from Conservative to Labour and that the government is approaching the next election in very bad shape. The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee Read more There are other electoral trends worth noting. One is that turnout is declining. The turnout in both byelections was poor, worse than Mid Bedfordshire last October but slightly better than Tamworth. The fall in Kingswood, usually a constituency with high participation, was particularly large, perhaps because of bad weather on polling day. While many of the missing voters will be former Conservatives, abstention is a form of protest and the Tories cannot count on persuading them to return when the general election takes place. It seems likely that the next election, like 1997, will see a significant fall in turnout alongside a big drop in the Conservative vote. Reform UK fared reasonably in both byelections, although 10% in Kingswood and 13% in Wellingborough are a long way short of the results Ukip was achieving in the run-up to the 2015 election. Wellingborough, which voted 63% for leave in the referendum and where the Conservative campaign was in disarray, should have been fertile ground but the campaign never quite took off. As with abstainers, it is foolish for Conservatives in search of a silver lining to lump Reform voters in with the Tories as a rightwing bloc that will come home at the general election; they are protest voters and many of them were expressing strong negative feelings about the government. But the Reform vote will sow discord among the Conservatives about how to respond to defeat. The Greens saved their deposit in Kingswood, not a bad result given the two-party squeeze. This could reflect disappointment over Labour dropping the £28bn package, but it also comes in the context of the environmentalist reasons for Chris Skidmore’s resignation and the credibility of the Greens in the Bristol area. Another point to note is that the Westminster ructions about Labour’s bad week – the policy retreat and the mess over its repudiated candidate in the Rochdale byelection – seems to have made little impact on the voters. The byelections were determined by deeper factors: the recessionary economy, strained public services, the unpopularity of the government and the prime minister, and the strong feeling of “time for a change”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The government is in deep, almost certainly terminal trouble and it is running out of time. The Wellingborough byelection is one for the record books. The fall in the Conservative share of the vote – an enormous 37.6 percentage points – was the worst the party has ever suffered in a byelection. The previous record, established in Liverpool Wavertree in 1935, had stood for nearly 90 years, but the swing of 28.5 percentage points from Conservative to Labour was the second-highest since the 1930s, after Tony Blair’s triumph in Dudley West in 1994. It came on the heels of other Labour gains in the last year with monster-sized swings of more than 20 points: Selby and Ainsty, Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire. Thatcher and Blair in opposition managed two such gains each; Starmer has notched up four. The swing to Labour in Kingswood was much less spectacular than in Wellingborough, but still a perfectly respectable 16.4 points, in the same bracket as byelections in Wirral South (1997) and Norwich North (2009), each of which took place less than a year before a change of government. It was approximately what one would expect given the national polls show a Labour lead approaching 20 points. The difference between the swings must owe something to the Conservatives’ choice of candidates for each seat: the partner of the disgraced former MP in Wellingborough and a well-liked local councillor in Kingswood. It also reflects the fact that Labour had fallen further in recent elections, and therefore had more room for improvement, in Wellingborough. The two results together, late in the government’s term, show that the polls are not wrong in pointing to a big swing from Conservative to Labour and that the government is approaching the next election in very bad shape. The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee Read more The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee Read more The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee Read more The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee The voters of Wellingborough and Kingswood said one thing with one voice: the Tory era is over | Polly Toynbee There are other electoral trends worth noting. One is that turnout is declining. The turnout in both byelections was poor, worse than Mid Bedfordshire last October but slightly better than Tamworth. The fall in Kingswood, usually a constituency with high participation, was particularly large, perhaps because of bad weather on polling day. While many of the missing voters will be former Conservatives, abstention is a form of protest and the Tories cannot count on persuading them to return when the general election takes place. It seems likely that the next election, like 1997, will see a significant fall in turnout alongside a big drop in the Conservative vote. Reform UK fared reasonably in both byelections, although 10% in Kingswood and 13% in Wellingborough are a long way short of the results Ukip was achieving in the run-up to the 2015 election. Wellingborough, which voted 63% for leave in the referendum and where the Conservative campaign was in disarray, should have been fertile ground but the campaign never quite took off. As with abstainers, it is foolish for Conservatives in search of a silver lining to lump Reform voters in with the Tories as a rightwing bloc that will come home at the general election; they are protest voters and many of them were expressing strong negative feelings about the government. But the Reform vote will sow discord among the Conservatives about how to respond to defeat. The Greens saved their deposit in Kingswood, not a bad result given the two-party squeeze. This could reflect disappointment over Labour dropping the £28bn package, but it also comes in the context of the environmentalist reasons for Chris Skidmore’s resignation and the credibility of the Greens in the Bristol area. Another point to note is that the Westminster ructions about Labour’s bad week – the policy retreat and the mess over its repudiated candidate in the Rochdale byelection – seems to have made little impact on the voters. The byelections were determined by deeper factors: the recessionary economy, strained public services, the unpopularity of the government and the prime minister, and the strong feeling of “time for a change”. The government is in deep, almost certainly terminal trouble and it is running out of time. Explore more on these topics Byelections Labour analysis Share Reuse this content |
First lockdown, then the voice, now renewables? Anti-government groups find new energy in environment battles
Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP View image in fullscreen Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP This article is more than 1 year old First lockdown, then the voice, now renewables? Anti-government groups find new energy in environment battles This article is more than 1 year old Protests against Australia’s transition to renewable power have attracted a wide coalition of interests, from mainstream parties to the wild shores of conspiracy Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast The protest signs at last week’s rally against renewables in Canberra spoke of hyperlocal concerns – but also cabals and plots of global proportion. Some spoke of immediate worries linked to environmental policies: “Oberon betrayed by state forestry”; and “Say no to Twin Creek wind farm”. But others decried a supposed “Attack on humanity: the great reset” – a reference to conspiracy theories about a a plot to reshape the world using the Covid-19 pandemic as a cover. A red ensign flag, which has come to represent Australia’s anti-lockdown movement, flapped above the stage in front of Parliament House as an irrigator described solar projects as “environmental terrorism”. The event, billed as the Reckless Renewables rally, is part of an increasingly loud fight over clean energy, as the government pushes for 82% of power to come from renewable sources within six years. There were about 500 people at the event, according to ACT police. Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup Some speakers raised concerns about potential damage to the natural environment and the adequacy of community consultation in areas where these projects may be rolled out – an issue of social licence recently acknowledged by the Australian energy infrastructure commissioner. Others, veterans of decades-long campaigns against climate action, repeated claims that renewables will take up vast amounts of prime agricultural land. But the sprawling network of Facebook groups that helped to promote the event suggests the issue has attracted the attention of a wide coalition of interests ranging from mainstream political parties to the wilder fringes of anti-government movements energised by Trumpian themes, pandemic lockdowns and a host of grievances apparently unrelated to protecting Australia’s farms, forests or oceans. ‘Laundry list’ of grievances The day’s first elected speaker, Coalition senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price , said that during a recent drive to Coober Pedy, nothing angered her more “than the sight of wind turbines”. “Nuclear energy is certainly the direction we need to go,” she said. The United Australia party senator Ralph Babet, who was up next, called climate change science “a new religion”, and railed against the parliament building behind him, calling it “filthy, disgusting”. “It is rotten to the core”. As the day wore on, it also became apparent the movement had, at least in part, been corralled into what Tim Graham, an associate professor in digital media at the University of Queensland, called a “laundry list” of grievances. One of the threads that runs from the pandemic’s anti-lockdown protests to some of the agitation against the Indigenous voice to parliament, and now to the Reckless Renewables rally, is anti-establishment sentiment, he suggests. “Politicians see this is an opportunity to build their base, to expand their narratives,” he said. “Not only can they capture that audience … but also co-opt it and cultivate it.” Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists Read more Canberra was certainly eager to capitalise on the energy. More than a dozen politicians from the Coalition, One Nation and the United Australia party – including some known climate sceptics – lined up to speak at the rally. One organiser said they had been more or less “swamped” by politicians eager to take the stage. Community groups from up and down Australia’s east coast were bussed to the capital to be heard, and some organisers were at pains to emphasise they were not anti-climate change or anti-all renewables – only concerned with how projects were being rolled out. Sandra Bourke, one of the event organisers and a member of the Hawks Nest Tea Gardens Progress Association, told Guardian Australia the movement was a “very broad church”. Bourke said she invited speakers from all sides of politics to speak. “We wanted to get attention drawn to what we’re trying to say to the government … too fast, too costly, at terrible cost to the environment,” she said of a possible offshore wind energy zone in the Hunter. “From our perspective … no one was hearing us,” she said. “You tell me how we should have got a voice for our community.” View image in fullscreen Barnaby Joyce speaks at the rally in Canberra. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP However, the event was also promoted by key figures associated with the anti-lockdown movement, including 2022 Convoy to Canberra figurehead and former Qantas pilot Graham Hood, who has more than 143,000 followers on Facebook. Craig Kelly and Babet of the UAP, which tried to woo this constituency during the 2022 federal election, railed against any kind of renewable energy target, linking it to well-worn populist themes. “Net zero is a sell out to the globalists,” Kelly told the excitable audience. “It is a wealth transfer from the Australian nation to the Communist party of China.” He later posted what appeared to be an AI-generated image on his X account of “Albaneseville: A NetZero [sic] community” – a tent city in a barren landscape, with wind turbines in the background. Also in the crowd was Matthew Sheahan, executive director of the right-wing lobby group Advance Australia , which led the campaign against the Voice. The organisation, a longtime opponent of renewable energy targets, told subscribers via its email newsletter it was “proud to back the rally”. “We’re not going to stand for them wrecking our way of life,” it read. Barnaby Joyce calls up an army Imogen Richards, who researches environmental crises and far-right politics at Deakin University, said mainstream politicians at the event risked endorsing not only the issue for which they ostensibly gathered, but all of the associated commentary. She suggested there was a political dynamic in Australia that attempts to exploit the anxiety some people feel about environmental and social challenges, and pit people against each other – the regions against urban areas, for example. “[It’s] a coming together of all of these different forms of crisis, and people feeling powerless,” she said. As Barnaby Joyce took to the stage, a man bellowed into the microphone: “We need someone like Donald Trump to save us. Watch what he does in America.” Joyce told the crowd windfarm and solar projects were “dumps”, as he encouraged the crowd to think of themselves as an “army”. The National party MP claimed a key role in unifying groups involved in the renewable energy backlash. Joyce told Guardian Australia he helped bring together some of the regional anti-renewable community organisations, promoting a group called the National Rational Energy Network (NREN) on Facebook to “coordinate national action” across Australia. A farmer from the Central West, Grant Piper, is the chair of NREN, which organised the rally. He is concerned about the possible rollout of new transmission lines for renewable projects on his property, but he acknowledged a diverse range of interest in the event. In a YouTube video shared in advance of the rally, Piper said he had been contacted by those concerned about other issues “whether it’s the Covid royal commission, whether it’s the war on cash”. Piper extended a hand beyond immediate environmental concerns. “A war is one battle at a time,” he said in the clip. “Just like the Voice last year, maybe we’re prosecuting the renewable energy net zero ideology … Maybe if we crack that one, and I think we can, then the other issues will fall one by one as well.” NREN’s treasurer is Ian Coxhead, the chair of the National party’s Tamworth branch, but Coxhead said that did not mean there was any formal link between NREN and the Nationals. “Whilst I’m involved in both of those organisations, they are totally separate and treated as such by me,” he said. In fact, the “reckless” renewables line has been floated by the Nationals for at least a year. In March 2023, the Nationals leader, David Littleproud , tested the line on Sky News. There is a “senseless and reckless race towards renewables”, he told Chris Kenny. Joyce said it was now time for him and the party to step back. “It can’t be a Barnaby thing and it can’t be a Nationals thing,” he said. “I want it to be seen as an organic [rally] of people from all sides of politics.” But having helped unleash a movement, there is no guarantee any political party can control where it heads. “I’m hoping that they’ll get off their arse and they will actually do something,” Piper said. “I can see, as much as anyone else, that the Liberals and Nationals have sold us out over the years.” Explore more on these topics Renewable energy Australian politics Energy National party Jacinta Nampijinpa Price One Nation Craig Kelly features Share Reuse this content Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP View image in fullscreen Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP This article is more than 1 year old First lockdown, then the voice, now renewables? Anti-government groups find new energy in environment battles This article is more than 1 year old Protests against Australia’s transition to renewable power have attracted a wide coalition of interests, from mainstream parties to the wild shores of conspiracy Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast The protest signs at last week’s rally against renewables in Canberra spoke of hyperlocal concerns – but also cabals and plots of global proportion. Some spoke of immediate worries linked to environmental policies: “Oberon betrayed by state forestry”; and “Say no to Twin Creek wind farm”. But others decried a supposed “Attack on humanity: the great reset” – a reference to conspiracy theories about a a plot to reshape the world using the Covid-19 pandemic as a cover. A red ensign flag, which has come to represent Australia’s anti-lockdown movement, flapped above the stage in front of Parliament House as an irrigator described solar projects as “environmental terrorism”. The event, billed as the Reckless Renewables rally, is part of an increasingly loud fight over clean energy, as the government pushes for 82% of power to come from renewable sources within six years. There were about 500 people at the event, according to ACT police. Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup Some speakers raised concerns about potential damage to the natural environment and the adequacy of community consultation in areas where these projects may be rolled out – an issue of social licence recently acknowledged by the Australian energy infrastructure commissioner. Others, veterans of decades-long campaigns against climate action, repeated claims that renewables will take up vast amounts of prime agricultural land. But the sprawling network of Facebook groups that helped to promote the event suggests the issue has attracted the attention of a wide coalition of interests ranging from mainstream political parties to the wilder fringes of anti-government movements energised by Trumpian themes, pandemic lockdowns and a host of grievances apparently unrelated to protecting Australia’s farms, forests or oceans. ‘Laundry list’ of grievances The day’s first elected speaker, Coalition senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price , said that during a recent drive to Coober Pedy, nothing angered her more “than the sight of wind turbines”. “Nuclear energy is certainly the direction we need to go,” she said. The United Australia party senator Ralph Babet, who was up next, called climate change science “a new religion”, and railed against the parliament building behind him, calling it “filthy, disgusting”. “It is rotten to the core”. As the day wore on, it also became apparent the movement had, at least in part, been corralled into what Tim Graham, an associate professor in digital media at the University of Queensland, called a “laundry list” of grievances. One of the threads that runs from the pandemic’s anti-lockdown protests to some of the agitation against the Indigenous voice to parliament, and now to the Reckless Renewables rally, is anti-establishment sentiment, he suggests. “Politicians see this is an opportunity to build their base, to expand their narratives,” he said. “Not only can they capture that audience … but also co-opt it and cultivate it.” Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists Read more Canberra was certainly eager to capitalise on the energy. More than a dozen politicians from the Coalition, One Nation and the United Australia party – including some known climate sceptics – lined up to speak at the rally. One organiser said they had been more or less “swamped” by politicians eager to take the stage. Community groups from up and down Australia’s east coast were bussed to the capital to be heard, and some organisers were at pains to emphasise they were not anti-climate change or anti-all renewables – only concerned with how projects were being rolled out. Sandra Bourke, one of the event organisers and a member of the Hawks Nest Tea Gardens Progress Association, told Guardian Australia the movement was a “very broad church”. Bourke said she invited speakers from all sides of politics to speak. “We wanted to get attention drawn to what we’re trying to say to the government … too fast, too costly, at terrible cost to the environment,” she said of a possible offshore wind energy zone in the Hunter. “From our perspective … no one was hearing us,” she said. “You tell me how we should have got a voice for our community.” View image in fullscreen Barnaby Joyce speaks at the rally in Canberra. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP However, the event was also promoted by key figures associated with the anti-lockdown movement, including 2022 Convoy to Canberra figurehead and former Qantas pilot Graham Hood, who has more than 143,000 followers on Facebook. Craig Kelly and Babet of the UAP, which tried to woo this constituency during the 2022 federal election, railed against any kind of renewable energy target, linking it to well-worn populist themes. “Net zero is a sell out to the globalists,” Kelly told the excitable audience. “It is a wealth transfer from the Australian nation to the Communist party of China.” He later posted what appeared to be an AI-generated image on his X account of “Albaneseville: A NetZero [sic] community” – a tent city in a barren landscape, with wind turbines in the background. Also in the crowd was Matthew Sheahan, executive director of the right-wing lobby group Advance Australia , which led the campaign against the Voice. The organisation, a longtime opponent of renewable energy targets, told subscribers via its email newsletter it was “proud to back the rally”. “We’re not going to stand for them wrecking our way of life,” it read. Barnaby Joyce calls up an army Imogen Richards, who researches environmental crises and far-right politics at Deakin University, said mainstream politicians at the event risked endorsing not only the issue for which they ostensibly gathered, but all of the associated commentary. She suggested there was a political dynamic in Australia that attempts to exploit the anxiety some people feel about environmental and social challenges, and pit people against each other – the regions against urban areas, for example. “[It’s] a coming together of all of these different forms of crisis, and people feeling powerless,” she said. As Barnaby Joyce took to the stage, a man bellowed into the microphone: “We need someone like Donald Trump to save us. Watch what he does in America.” Joyce told the crowd windfarm and solar projects were “dumps”, as he encouraged the crowd to think of themselves as an “army”. The National party MP claimed a key role in unifying groups involved in the renewable energy backlash. Joyce told Guardian Australia he helped bring together some of the regional anti-renewable community organisations, promoting a group called the National Rational Energy Network (NREN) on Facebook to “coordinate national action” across Australia. A farmer from the Central West, Grant Piper, is the chair of NREN, which organised the rally. He is concerned about the possible rollout of new transmission lines for renewable projects on his property, but he acknowledged a diverse range of interest in the event. In a YouTube video shared in advance of the rally, Piper said he had been contacted by those concerned about other issues “whether it’s the Covid royal commission, whether it’s the war on cash”. Piper extended a hand beyond immediate environmental concerns. “A war is one battle at a time,” he said in the clip. “Just like the Voice last year, maybe we’re prosecuting the renewable energy net zero ideology … Maybe if we crack that one, and I think we can, then the other issues will fall one by one as well.” NREN’s treasurer is Ian Coxhead, the chair of the National party’s Tamworth branch, but Coxhead said that did not mean there was any formal link between NREN and the Nationals. “Whilst I’m involved in both of those organisations, they are totally separate and treated as such by me,” he said. In fact, the “reckless” renewables line has been floated by the Nationals for at least a year. In March 2023, the Nationals leader, David Littleproud , tested the line on Sky News. There is a “senseless and reckless race towards renewables”, he told Chris Kenny. Joyce said it was now time for him and the party to step back. “It can’t be a Barnaby thing and it can’t be a Nationals thing,” he said. “I want it to be seen as an organic [rally] of people from all sides of politics.” But having helped unleash a movement, there is no guarantee any political party can control where it heads. “I’m hoping that they’ll get off their arse and they will actually do something,” Piper said. “I can see, as much as anyone else, that the Liberals and Nationals have sold us out over the years.” Explore more on these topics Renewable energy Australian politics Energy National party Jacinta Nampijinpa Price One Nation Craig Kelly features Share Reuse this content Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP View image in fullscreen Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP View image in fullscreen Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP View image in fullscreen Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP View image in fullscreen Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP Protesters at the rally against renewable energy, with anti-lockdown red ensign flags and a sign referring to an alleged paedophile conspiracy in the background. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP This article is more than 1 year old First lockdown, then the voice, now renewables? Anti-government groups find new energy in environment battles This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old First lockdown, then the voice, now renewables? Anti-government groups find new energy in environment battles This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old First lockdown, then the voice, now renewables? Anti-government groups find new energy in environment battles This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Protests against Australia’s transition to renewable power have attracted a wide coalition of interests, from mainstream parties to the wild shores of conspiracy Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast Protests against Australia’s transition to renewable power have attracted a wide coalition of interests, from mainstream parties to the wild shores of conspiracy Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast Protests against Australia’s transition to renewable power have attracted a wide coalition of interests, from mainstream parties to the wild shores of conspiracy The protest signs at last week’s rally against renewables in Canberra spoke of hyperlocal concerns – but also cabals and plots of global proportion. Some spoke of immediate worries linked to environmental policies: “Oberon betrayed by state forestry”; and “Say no to Twin Creek wind farm”. But others decried a supposed “Attack on humanity: the great reset” – a reference to conspiracy theories about a a plot to reshape the world using the Covid-19 pandemic as a cover. A red ensign flag, which has come to represent Australia’s anti-lockdown movement, flapped above the stage in front of Parliament House as an irrigator described solar projects as “environmental terrorism”. The event, billed as the Reckless Renewables rally, is part of an increasingly loud fight over clean energy, as the government pushes for 82% of power to come from renewable sources within six years. There were about 500 people at the event, according to ACT police. Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup Some speakers raised concerns about potential damage to the natural environment and the adequacy of community consultation in areas where these projects may be rolled out – an issue of social licence recently acknowledged by the Australian energy infrastructure commissioner. Others, veterans of decades-long campaigns against climate action, repeated claims that renewables will take up vast amounts of prime agricultural land. But the sprawling network of Facebook groups that helped to promote the event suggests the issue has attracted the attention of a wide coalition of interests ranging from mainstream political parties to the wilder fringes of anti-government movements energised by Trumpian themes, pandemic lockdowns and a host of grievances apparently unrelated to protecting Australia’s farms, forests or oceans. ‘Laundry list’ of grievances The day’s first elected speaker, Coalition senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price , said that during a recent drive to Coober Pedy, nothing angered her more “than the sight of wind turbines”. “Nuclear energy is certainly the direction we need to go,” she said. The United Australia party senator Ralph Babet, who was up next, called climate change science “a new religion”, and railed against the parliament building behind him, calling it “filthy, disgusting”. “It is rotten to the core”. As the day wore on, it also became apparent the movement had, at least in part, been corralled into what Tim Graham, an associate professor in digital media at the University of Queensland, called a “laundry list” of grievances. One of the threads that runs from the pandemic’s anti-lockdown protests to some of the agitation against the Indigenous voice to parliament, and now to the Reckless Renewables rally, is anti-establishment sentiment, he suggests. “Politicians see this is an opportunity to build their base, to expand their narratives,” he said. “Not only can they capture that audience … but also co-opt it and cultivate it.” Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists Read more Canberra was certainly eager to capitalise on the energy. More than a dozen politicians from the Coalition, One Nation and the United Australia party – including some known climate sceptics – lined up to speak at the rally. One organiser said they had been more or less “swamped” by politicians eager to take the stage. Community groups from up and down Australia’s east coast were bussed to the capital to be heard, and some organisers were at pains to emphasise they were not anti-climate change or anti-all renewables – only concerned with how projects were being rolled out. Sandra Bourke, one of the event organisers and a member of the Hawks Nest Tea Gardens Progress Association, told Guardian Australia the movement was a “very broad church”. Bourke said she invited speakers from all sides of politics to speak. “We wanted to get attention drawn to what we’re trying to say to the government … too fast, too costly, at terrible cost to the environment,” she said of a possible offshore wind energy zone in the Hunter. “From our perspective … no one was hearing us,” she said. “You tell me how we should have got a voice for our community.” View image in fullscreen Barnaby Joyce speaks at the rally in Canberra. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP However, the event was also promoted by key figures associated with the anti-lockdown movement, including 2022 Convoy to Canberra figurehead and former Qantas pilot Graham Hood, who has more than 143,000 followers on Facebook. Craig Kelly and Babet of the UAP, which tried to woo this constituency during the 2022 federal election, railed against any kind of renewable energy target, linking it to well-worn populist themes. “Net zero is a sell out to the globalists,” Kelly told the excitable audience. “It is a wealth transfer from the Australian nation to the Communist party of China.” He later posted what appeared to be an AI-generated image on his X account of “Albaneseville: A NetZero [sic] community” – a tent city in a barren landscape, with wind turbines in the background. Also in the crowd was Matthew Sheahan, executive director of the right-wing lobby group Advance Australia , which led the campaign against the Voice. The organisation, a longtime opponent of renewable energy targets, told subscribers via its email newsletter it was “proud to back the rally”. “We’re not going to stand for them wrecking our way of life,” it read. Barnaby Joyce calls up an army Imogen Richards, who researches environmental crises and far-right politics at Deakin University, said mainstream politicians at the event risked endorsing not only the issue for which they ostensibly gathered, but all of the associated commentary. She suggested there was a political dynamic in Australia that attempts to exploit the anxiety some people feel about environmental and social challenges, and pit people against each other – the regions against urban areas, for example. “[It’s] a coming together of all of these different forms of crisis, and people feeling powerless,” she said. As Barnaby Joyce took to the stage, a man bellowed into the microphone: “We need someone like Donald Trump to save us. Watch what he does in America.” Joyce told the crowd windfarm and solar projects were “dumps”, as he encouraged the crowd to think of themselves as an “army”. The National party MP claimed a key role in unifying groups involved in the renewable energy backlash. Joyce told Guardian Australia he helped bring together some of the regional anti-renewable community organisations, promoting a group called the National Rational Energy Network (NREN) on Facebook to “coordinate national action” across Australia. A farmer from the Central West, Grant Piper, is the chair of NREN, which organised the rally. He is concerned about the possible rollout of new transmission lines for renewable projects on his property, but he acknowledged a diverse range of interest in the event. In a YouTube video shared in advance of the rally, Piper said he had been contacted by those concerned about other issues “whether it’s the Covid royal commission, whether it’s the war on cash”. Piper extended a hand beyond immediate environmental concerns. “A war is one battle at a time,” he said in the clip. “Just like the Voice last year, maybe we’re prosecuting the renewable energy net zero ideology … Maybe if we crack that one, and I think we can, then the other issues will fall one by one as well.” NREN’s treasurer is Ian Coxhead, the chair of the National party’s Tamworth branch, but Coxhead said that did not mean there was any formal link between NREN and the Nationals. “Whilst I’m involved in both of those organisations, they are totally separate and treated as such by me,” he said. In fact, the “reckless” renewables line has been floated by the Nationals for at least a year. In March 2023, the Nationals leader, David Littleproud , tested the line on Sky News. There is a “senseless and reckless race towards renewables”, he told Chris Kenny. Joyce said it was now time for him and the party to step back. “It can’t be a Barnaby thing and it can’t be a Nationals thing,” he said. “I want it to be seen as an organic [rally] of people from all sides of politics.” But having helped unleash a movement, there is no guarantee any political party can control where it heads. “I’m hoping that they’ll get off their arse and they will actually do something,” Piper said. “I can see, as much as anyone else, that the Liberals and Nationals have sold us out over the years.” Explore more on these topics Renewable energy Australian politics Energy National party Jacinta Nampijinpa Price One Nation Craig Kelly features Share Reuse this content The protest signs at last week’s rally against renewables in Canberra spoke of hyperlocal concerns – but also cabals and plots of global proportion. Some spoke of immediate worries linked to environmental policies: “Oberon betrayed by state forestry”; and “Say no to Twin Creek wind farm”. But others decried a supposed “Attack on humanity: the great reset” – a reference to conspiracy theories about a a plot to reshape the world using the Covid-19 pandemic as a cover. A red ensign flag, which has come to represent Australia’s anti-lockdown movement, flapped above the stage in front of Parliament House as an irrigator described solar projects as “environmental terrorism”. The event, billed as the Reckless Renewables rally, is part of an increasingly loud fight over clean energy, as the government pushes for 82% of power to come from renewable sources within six years. There were about 500 people at the event, according to ACT police. Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup Some speakers raised concerns about potential damage to the natural environment and the adequacy of community consultation in areas where these projects may be rolled out – an issue of social licence recently acknowledged by the Australian energy infrastructure commissioner. Others, veterans of decades-long campaigns against climate action, repeated claims that renewables will take up vast amounts of prime agricultural land. But the sprawling network of Facebook groups that helped to promote the event suggests the issue has attracted the attention of a wide coalition of interests ranging from mainstream political parties to the wilder fringes of anti-government movements energised by Trumpian themes, pandemic lockdowns and a host of grievances apparently unrelated to protecting Australia’s farms, forests or oceans. ‘Laundry list’ of grievances The day’s first elected speaker, Coalition senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price , said that during a recent drive to Coober Pedy, nothing angered her more “than the sight of wind turbines”. “Nuclear energy is certainly the direction we need to go,” she said. The United Australia party senator Ralph Babet, who was up next, called climate change science “a new religion”, and railed against the parliament building behind him, calling it “filthy, disgusting”. “It is rotten to the core”. As the day wore on, it also became apparent the movement had, at least in part, been corralled into what Tim Graham, an associate professor in digital media at the University of Queensland, called a “laundry list” of grievances. One of the threads that runs from the pandemic’s anti-lockdown protests to some of the agitation against the Indigenous voice to parliament, and now to the Reckless Renewables rally, is anti-establishment sentiment, he suggests. “Politicians see this is an opportunity to build their base, to expand their narratives,” he said. “Not only can they capture that audience … but also co-opt it and cultivate it.” Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists Read more Canberra was certainly eager to capitalise on the energy. More than a dozen politicians from the Coalition, One Nation and the United Australia party – including some known climate sceptics – lined up to speak at the rally. One organiser said they had been more or less “swamped” by politicians eager to take the stage. Community groups from up and down Australia’s east coast were bussed to the capital to be heard, and some organisers were at pains to emphasise they were not anti-climate change or anti-all renewables – only concerned with how projects were being rolled out. Sandra Bourke, one of the event organisers and a member of the Hawks Nest Tea Gardens Progress Association, told Guardian Australia the movement was a “very broad church”. Bourke said she invited speakers from all sides of politics to speak. “We wanted to get attention drawn to what we’re trying to say to the government … too fast, too costly, at terrible cost to the environment,” she said of a possible offshore wind energy zone in the Hunter. “From our perspective … no one was hearing us,” she said. “You tell me how we should have got a voice for our community.” View image in fullscreen Barnaby Joyce speaks at the rally in Canberra. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP However, the event was also promoted by key figures associated with the anti-lockdown movement, including 2022 Convoy to Canberra figurehead and former Qantas pilot Graham Hood, who has more than 143,000 followers on Facebook. Craig Kelly and Babet of the UAP, which tried to woo this constituency during the 2022 federal election, railed against any kind of renewable energy target, linking it to well-worn populist themes. “Net zero is a sell out to the globalists,” Kelly told the excitable audience. “It is a wealth transfer from the Australian nation to the Communist party of China.” He later posted what appeared to be an AI-generated image on his X account of “Albaneseville: A NetZero [sic] community” – a tent city in a barren landscape, with wind turbines in the background. Also in the crowd was Matthew Sheahan, executive director of the right-wing lobby group Advance Australia , which led the campaign against the Voice. The organisation, a longtime opponent of renewable energy targets, told subscribers via its email newsletter it was “proud to back the rally”. “We’re not going to stand for them wrecking our way of life,” it read. Barnaby Joyce calls up an army Imogen Richards, who researches environmental crises and far-right politics at Deakin University, said mainstream politicians at the event risked endorsing not only the issue for which they ostensibly gathered, but all of the associated commentary. She suggested there was a political dynamic in Australia that attempts to exploit the anxiety some people feel about environmental and social challenges, and pit people against each other – the regions against urban areas, for example. “[It’s] a coming together of all of these different forms of crisis, and people feeling powerless,” she said. As Barnaby Joyce took to the stage, a man bellowed into the microphone: “We need someone like Donald Trump to save us. Watch what he does in America.” Joyce told the crowd windfarm and solar projects were “dumps”, as he encouraged the crowd to think of themselves as an “army”. The National party MP claimed a key role in unifying groups involved in the renewable energy backlash. Joyce told Guardian Australia he helped bring together some of the regional anti-renewable community organisations, promoting a group called the National Rational Energy Network (NREN) on Facebook to “coordinate national action” across Australia. A farmer from the Central West, Grant Piper, is the chair of NREN, which organised the rally. He is concerned about the possible rollout of new transmission lines for renewable projects on his property, but he acknowledged a diverse range of interest in the event. In a YouTube video shared in advance of the rally, Piper said he had been contacted by those concerned about other issues “whether it’s the Covid royal commission, whether it’s the war on cash”. Piper extended a hand beyond immediate environmental concerns. “A war is one battle at a time,” he said in the clip. “Just like the Voice last year, maybe we’re prosecuting the renewable energy net zero ideology … Maybe if we crack that one, and I think we can, then the other issues will fall one by one as well.” NREN’s treasurer is Ian Coxhead, the chair of the National party’s Tamworth branch, but Coxhead said that did not mean there was any formal link between NREN and the Nationals. “Whilst I’m involved in both of those organisations, they are totally separate and treated as such by me,” he said. In fact, the “reckless” renewables line has been floated by the Nationals for at least a year. In March 2023, the Nationals leader, David Littleproud , tested the line on Sky News. There is a “senseless and reckless race towards renewables”, he told Chris Kenny. Joyce said it was now time for him and the party to step back. “It can’t be a Barnaby thing and it can’t be a Nationals thing,” he said. “I want it to be seen as an organic [rally] of people from all sides of politics.” But having helped unleash a movement, there is no guarantee any political party can control where it heads. “I’m hoping that they’ll get off their arse and they will actually do something,” Piper said. “I can see, as much as anyone else, that the Liberals and Nationals have sold us out over the years.” Explore more on these topics Renewable energy Australian politics Energy National party Jacinta Nampijinpa Price One Nation Craig Kelly features Share Reuse this content The protest signs at last week’s rally against renewables in Canberra spoke of hyperlocal concerns – but also cabals and plots of global proportion. Some spoke of immediate worries linked to environmental policies: “Oberon betrayed by state forestry”; and “Say no to Twin Creek wind farm”. But others decried a supposed “Attack on humanity: the great reset” – a reference to conspiracy theories about a a plot to reshape the world using the Covid-19 pandemic as a cover. A red ensign flag, which has come to represent Australia’s anti-lockdown movement, flapped above the stage in front of Parliament House as an irrigator described solar projects as “environmental terrorism”. The event, billed as the Reckless Renewables rally, is part of an increasingly loud fight over clean energy, as the government pushes for 82% of power to come from renewable sources within six years. There were about 500 people at the event, according to ACT police. Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup Some speakers raised concerns about potential damage to the natural environment and the adequacy of community consultation in areas where these projects may be rolled out – an issue of social licence recently acknowledged by the Australian energy infrastructure commissioner. Others, veterans of decades-long campaigns against climate action, repeated claims that renewables will take up vast amounts of prime agricultural land. But the sprawling network of Facebook groups that helped to promote the event suggests the issue has attracted the attention of a wide coalition of interests ranging from mainstream political parties to the wilder fringes of anti-government movements energised by Trumpian themes, pandemic lockdowns and a host of grievances apparently unrelated to protecting Australia’s farms, forests or oceans. ‘Laundry list’ of grievances The day’s first elected speaker, Coalition senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price , said that during a recent drive to Coober Pedy, nothing angered her more “than the sight of wind turbines”. “Nuclear energy is certainly the direction we need to go,” she said. The United Australia party senator Ralph Babet, who was up next, called climate change science “a new religion”, and railed against the parliament building behind him, calling it “filthy, disgusting”. “It is rotten to the core”. As the day wore on, it also became apparent the movement had, at least in part, been corralled into what Tim Graham, an associate professor in digital media at the University of Queensland, called a “laundry list” of grievances. One of the threads that runs from the pandemic’s anti-lockdown protests to some of the agitation against the Indigenous voice to parliament, and now to the Reckless Renewables rally, is anti-establishment sentiment, he suggests. “Politicians see this is an opportunity to build their base, to expand their narratives,” he said. “Not only can they capture that audience … but also co-opt it and cultivate it.” Reckless or reasonable? Factchecking the claims of anti-renewable activists Read more Canberra was certainly eager to capitalise on the energy. More than a dozen politicians from the Coalition, One Nation and the United Australia party – including some known climate sceptics – lined up to speak at the rally. One organiser said they had been more or less “swamped” by politicians eager to take the stage. Community groups from up and down Australia’s east coast were bussed to the capital to be heard, and some organisers were at pains to emphasise they were not anti-climate change or anti-all renewables – only concerned with how projects were being rolled out. Sandra Bourke, one of the event organisers and a member of the Hawks Nest Tea Gardens Progress Association, told Guardian Australia the movement was a “very broad church”. Bourke said she invited speakers from all sides of politics to speak. “We wanted to get attention drawn to what we’re trying to say to the government … too fast, too costly, at terrible cost to the environment,” she said of a possible offshore wind energy zone in the Hunter. “From our perspective … no one was hearing us,” she said. “You tell me how we should have got a voice for our community.” View image in fullscreen Barnaby Joyce speaks at the rally in Canberra. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP However, the event was also promoted by key figures associated with the anti-lockdown movement, including 2022 Convoy to Canberra figurehead and former Qantas pilot Graham Hood, who has more than 143,000 followers on Facebook. Craig Kelly and Babet of the UAP, which tried to woo this constituency during the 2022 federal election, railed against any kind of renewable energy target, linking it to well-worn populist themes. “Net zero is a sell out to the globalists,” Kelly told the excitable audience. “It is a wealth transfer from the Australian nation to the Communist party of China.” He later posted what appeared to be an AI-generated image on his X account of “Albaneseville: A NetZero [sic] community” – a tent city in a barren landscape, with wind turbines in the background. Also in the crowd was Matthew Sheahan, executive director of the right-wing lobby group Advance Australia , which led the campaign against the Voice. The organisation, a longtime opponent of renewable energy targets, told subscribers via its email newsletter it was “proud to back the rally”. “We’re not going to stand for them wrecking our way of life,” it read. Barnaby Joyce calls up an army Imogen Richards, who researches environmental crises and far-right politics at Deakin University, said mainstream politicians at the event risked endorsing not only the issue for which they ostensibly gathered, but all of the associated commentary. She suggested there was a political dynamic in Australia that attempts to exploit the anxiety some people feel about environmental and social challenges, and pit people against each other – the regions against urban areas, for example. “[It’s] a coming together of all of these different forms of crisis, and people feeling powerless,” she said. As Barnaby Joyce took to the stage, a man bellowed into the microphone: “We need someone like Donald Trump to save us. Watch what he does in America.” Joyce told the crowd windfarm and solar projects were “dumps”, as he encouraged the crowd to think of themselves as an “army”. The National party MP claimed a key role in unifying groups involved in the renewable energy backlash. Joyce told Guardian Australia he helped bring together some of the regional anti-renewable community organisations, promoting a group called the National Rational Energy Network (NREN) on Facebook to “coordinate national action” across Australia. A farmer from the Central West, Grant Piper, is the chair of NREN, which organised the rally. He is concerned about the possible rollout of new transmission lines for renewable projects on his property, but he acknowledged a diverse range of interest in the event. In a YouTube video shared in advance of the rally, Piper said he had been contacted by those concerned about other issues “whether it’s the Covid royal commission, whether it’s the war on cash”. Piper extended a hand beyond immediate environmental concerns. “A war is one battle at a time,” he said in the clip. “Just like the Voice last year, maybe we’re prosecuting the renewable energy net zero ideology … Maybe if we crack that one, and I think we can, then the other issues will fall one by one as well.” NREN’s treasurer is Ian Coxhead, the chair of the National party’s Tamworth branch, but Coxhead said that did not mean there was any formal link between NREN and the Nationals. “Whilst I’m involved in both of those organisations, they are totally separate and treated as such by me,” he said. In fact, the “reckless” renewables line has been floated by the Nationals for at least a year. In March 2023, the Nationals leader, David Littleproud , tested the line on Sky News. There is a “senseless and reckless race towards renewables”, he told Chris Kenny. Joyce said it was now time for him and the party to step back. “It can’t be a Barnaby thing and it can’t be a Nationals thing,” he said. “I want it to be seen as an organic [rally] of people from all sides of politics.” But having helped unleash a movement, there is no guarantee any political party can control where it heads. “I’m hoping that they’ll get off their arse and they will actually do something,” Piper said. “I can see, as much as anyone else, that the Liberals and Nationals have sold us out over the years.” The protest signs at last week’s rally against renewables in Canberra spoke of hyperlocal concerns – but also cabals and plots of global proportion. Some spoke of immediate worries linked to environmental policies: “Oberon betrayed by state for
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Sunak faces conflicting calls over Tory path forward after bruising byelections
Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Sunak faces conflicting calls over Tory path forward after bruising byelections This article is more than 1 year old Rowena Mason Whitehall editor Loudest voices urge further tack to right after Reform UK gains but moderates argue general election can only be won on centre ground For Reform UK to win 13% of the vote in a byelection is a long way from the heady days of Ukip taking 60% in Clacton in 2014. However, that share of the vote was still a shock for the Conservatives on Friday morning, given that Reform is a newer party without the draw of Nigel Farage as leader or the rallying cause of Brexit behind it. When a rightwing government has lost two byelections to a centre-left opposition, it would seem a strange response for the prime minister to veer further to the right. Nevertheless, the loudest voices urging Sunak to change path on Friday were those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Conservative cabinet minister, and the founders of the New Conservatives parliamentary group – Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger – who, instead of seeing Labour as the biggest threat, claimed that uniting the “Tory family” of Reform and Conservative voters would be a winning strategy. Many polling experts were quick to say such an approach did not make sense. Straightforwardly adding the Conservative vote share of 25% and Reform’s 13% does not match the Labour vote share of 46% in Wellingborough. Luke Tryl of the thinktank More in Common pointed out that in any case it was “really important to remember not all Reform votes come from the Tories and even fewer would go back to the Tories in the absence of Reform, so you really can’t add the two vote shares together as a ‘reunited right’.” Sunak and the Tory party chair, Richard Holden, downplayed the impact of the Reform vote, suggesting it would melt away when people were confronted with the stark choice at a general election of who they wanted as the next prime minister. The risk for the Conservatives might be greater if Farage were to fully throw his weight behind Reform, which claims it plans to stand candidates in every seat. However, the former Ukip and Brexit party leader, who helped Boris Johnson in 2019 by standing aside in places with an incumbent Tory MP, is yet to decide whether he really wants to cause damage to the Conservatives. “The danger of Reform is exaggerated,” said a Tory MP in the One Nation group. “Byelections show protest parties getting many more votes, but things change in an actual general election.” Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Read more Conservative moderates tend to be far more worried about Labour – or in some seats the Liberal Democrats – taking their former voters on issues such as the cost of living, housing and the NHS. However, the right of the Conservative party still appeared determined to learn the wrong lesson from Labour’s byelection wins: not that there is a mood for change and that Starmer is consistently polling as more trusted and competent than Sunak, but that a minority of voters want more rightwing policies. More centrist Conservatives believe that is a wrong-headed conclusion and that elections are fought and won only on the centre ground of politics. Johnson’s 2019 victory was, after all, contested not just on the issue of Brexit but on a platform of increased public spending on police, hospitals and levelling up, which struck a chord in the north and the Midlands. Sunak has shown himself consistently buffeted by the right of the party into doubling down on the Rwanda policy despite evidence that it is illegal; delaying net zero goals; and now heading for tax cuts and a fresh round of austerity, when experts warn it would be an unwise move during a recession. He has so far withstood the siren calls of those pressing him to go into the next election promising to withdraw from the European court of human rights, but the temptation will be there to do that as a clear dividing line with Starmer. The question is who Sunak will listen to, having sided with the right for much of his premiership so far. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Reform UK Byelections Rishi Sunak Labour analysis Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Sunak faces conflicting calls over Tory path forward after bruising byelections This article is more than 1 year old Rowena Mason Whitehall editor Loudest voices urge further tack to right after Reform UK gains but moderates argue general election can only be won on centre ground For Reform UK to win 13% of the vote in a byelection is a long way from the heady days of Ukip taking 60% in Clacton in 2014. However, that share of the vote was still a shock for the Conservatives on Friday morning, given that Reform is a newer party without the draw of Nigel Farage as leader or the rallying cause of Brexit behind it. When a rightwing government has lost two byelections to a centre-left opposition, it would seem a strange response for the prime minister to veer further to the right. Nevertheless, the loudest voices urging Sunak to change path on Friday were those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Conservative cabinet minister, and the founders of the New Conservatives parliamentary group – Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger – who, instead of seeing Labour as the biggest threat, claimed that uniting the “Tory family” of Reform and Conservative voters would be a winning strategy. Many polling experts were quick to say such an approach did not make sense. Straightforwardly adding the Conservative vote share of 25% and Reform’s 13% does not match the Labour vote share of 46% in Wellingborough. Luke Tryl of the thinktank More in Common pointed out that in any case it was “really important to remember not all Reform votes come from the Tories and even fewer would go back to the Tories in the absence of Reform, so you really can’t add the two vote shares together as a ‘reunited right’.” Sunak and the Tory party chair, Richard Holden, downplayed the impact of the Reform vote, suggesting it would melt away when people were confronted with the stark choice at a general election of who they wanted as the next prime minister. The risk for the Conservatives might be greater if Farage were to fully throw his weight behind Reform, which claims it plans to stand candidates in every seat. However, the former Ukip and Brexit party leader, who helped Boris Johnson in 2019 by standing aside in places with an incumbent Tory MP, is yet to decide whether he really wants to cause damage to the Conservatives. “The danger of Reform is exaggerated,” said a Tory MP in the One Nation group. “Byelections show protest parties getting many more votes, but things change in an actual general election.” Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Read more Conservative moderates tend to be far more worried about Labour – or in some seats the Liberal Democrats – taking their former voters on issues such as the cost of living, housing and the NHS. However, the right of the Conservative party still appeared determined to learn the wrong lesson from Labour’s byelection wins: not that there is a mood for change and that Starmer is consistently polling as more trusted and competent than Sunak, but that a minority of voters want more rightwing policies. More centrist Conservatives believe that is a wrong-headed conclusion and that elections are fought and won only on the centre ground of politics. Johnson’s 2019 victory was, after all, contested not just on the issue of Brexit but on a platform of increased public spending on police, hospitals and levelling up, which struck a chord in the north and the Midlands. Sunak has shown himself consistently buffeted by the right of the party into doubling down on the Rwanda policy despite evidence that it is illegal; delaying net zero goals; and now heading for tax cuts and a fresh round of austerity, when experts warn it would be an unwise move during a recession. He has so far withstood the siren calls of those pressing him to go into the next election promising to withdraw from the European court of human rights, but the temptation will be there to do that as a clear dividing line with Starmer. The question is who Sunak will listen to, having sided with the right for much of his premiership so far. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Reform UK Byelections Rishi Sunak Labour analysis Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA Rishi Sunak downplayed the impact of the Reform UK vote, saying the ‘actual choice’ at the general election would be between the Conservatives and Labour. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Sunak faces conflicting calls over Tory path forward after bruising byelections This article is more than 1 year old Rowena Mason Whitehall editor This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Sunak faces conflicting calls over Tory path forward after bruising byelections This article is more than 1 year old Rowena Mason Whitehall editor This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Sunak faces conflicting calls over Tory path forward after bruising byelections This article is more than 1 year old Rowena Mason Whitehall editor This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Loudest voices urge further tack to right after Reform UK gains but moderates argue general election can only be won on centre ground Loudest voices urge further tack to right after Reform UK gains but moderates argue general election can only be won on centre ground Loudest voices urge further tack to right after Reform UK gains but moderates argue general election can only be won on centre ground For Reform UK to win 13% of the vote in a byelection is a long way from the heady days of Ukip taking 60% in Clacton in 2014. However, that share of the vote was still a shock for the Conservatives on Friday morning, given that Reform is a newer party without the draw of Nigel Farage as leader or the rallying cause of Brexit behind it. When a rightwing government has lost two byelections to a centre-left opposition, it would seem a strange response for the prime minister to veer further to the right. Nevertheless, the loudest voices urging Sunak to change path on Friday were those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Conservative cabinet minister, and the founders of the New Conservatives parliamentary group – Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger – who, instead of seeing Labour as the biggest threat, claimed that uniting the “Tory family” of Reform and Conservative voters would be a winning strategy. Many polling experts were quick to say such an approach did not make sense. Straightforwardly adding the Conservative vote share of 25% and Reform’s 13% does not match the Labour vote share of 46% in Wellingborough. Luke Tryl of the thinktank More in Common pointed out that in any case it was “really important to remember not all Reform votes come from the Tories and even fewer would go back to the Tories in the absence of Reform, so you really can’t add the two vote shares together as a ‘reunited right’.” Sunak and the Tory party chair, Richard Holden, downplayed the impact of the Reform vote, suggesting it would melt away when people were confronted with the stark choice at a general election of who they wanted as the next prime minister. The risk for the Conservatives might be greater if Farage were to fully throw his weight behind Reform, which claims it plans to stand candidates in every seat. However, the former Ukip and Brexit party leader, who helped Boris Johnson in 2019 by standing aside in places with an incumbent Tory MP, is yet to decide whether he really wants to cause damage to the Conservatives. “The danger of Reform is exaggerated,” said a Tory MP in the One Nation group. “Byelections show protest parties getting many more votes, but things change in an actual general election.” Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Read more Conservative moderates tend to be far more worried about Labour – or in some seats the Liberal Democrats – taking their former voters on issues such as the cost of living, housing and the NHS. However, the right of the Conservative party still appeared determined to learn the wrong lesson from Labour’s byelection wins: not that there is a mood for change and that Starmer is consistently polling as more trusted and competent than Sunak, but that a minority of voters want more rightwing policies. More centrist Conservatives believe that is a wrong-headed conclusion and that elections are fought and won only on the centre ground of politics. Johnson’s 2019 victory was, after all, contested not just on the issue of Brexit but on a platform of increased public spending on police, hospitals and levelling up, which struck a chord in the north and the Midlands. Sunak has shown himself consistently buffeted by the right of the party into doubling down on the Rwanda policy despite evidence that it is illegal; delaying net zero goals; and now heading for tax cuts and a fresh round of austerity, when experts warn it would be an unwise move during a recession. He has so far withstood the siren calls of those pressing him to go into the next election promising to withdraw from the European court of human rights, but the temptation will be there to do that as a clear dividing line with Starmer. The question is who Sunak will listen to, having sided with the right for much of his premiership so far. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Reform UK Byelections Rishi Sunak Labour analysis Share Reuse this content For Reform UK to win 13% of the vote in a byelection is a long way from the heady days of Ukip taking 60% in Clacton in 2014. However, that share of the vote was still a shock for the Conservatives on Friday morning, given that Reform is a newer party without the draw of Nigel Farage as leader or the rallying cause of Brexit behind it. When a rightwing government has lost two byelections to a centre-left opposition, it would seem a strange response for the prime minister to veer further to the right. Nevertheless, the loudest voices urging Sunak to change path on Friday were those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Conservative cabinet minister, and the founders of the New Conservatives parliamentary group – Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger – who, instead of seeing Labour as the biggest threat, claimed that uniting the “Tory family” of Reform and Conservative voters would be a winning strategy. Many polling experts were quick to say such an approach did not make sense. Straightforwardly adding the Conservative vote share of 25% and Reform’s 13% does not match the Labour vote share of 46% in Wellingborough. Luke Tryl of the thinktank More in Common pointed out that in any case it was “really important to remember not all Reform votes come from the Tories and even fewer would go back to the Tories in the absence of Reform, so you really can’t add the two vote shares together as a ‘reunited right’.” Sunak and the Tory party chair, Richard Holden, downplayed the impact of the Reform vote, suggesting it would melt away when people were confronted with the stark choice at a general election of who they wanted as the next prime minister. The risk for the Conservatives might be greater if Farage were to fully throw his weight behind Reform, which claims it plans to stand candidates in every seat. However, the former Ukip and Brexit party leader, who helped Boris Johnson in 2019 by standing aside in places with an incumbent Tory MP, is yet to decide whether he really wants to cause damage to the Conservatives. “The danger of Reform is exaggerated,” said a Tory MP in the One Nation group. “Byelections show protest parties getting many more votes, but things change in an actual general election.” Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Read more Conservative moderates tend to be far more worried about Labour – or in some seats the Liberal Democrats – taking their former voters on issues such as the cost of living, housing and the NHS. However, the right of the Conservative party still appeared determined to learn the wrong lesson from Labour’s byelection wins: not that there is a mood for change and that Starmer is consistently polling as more trusted and competent than Sunak, but that a minority of voters want more rightwing policies. More centrist Conservatives believe that is a wrong-headed conclusion and that elections are fought and won only on the centre ground of politics. Johnson’s 2019 victory was, after all, contested not just on the issue of Brexit but on a platform of increased public spending on police, hospitals and levelling up, which struck a chord in the north and the Midlands. Sunak has shown himself consistently buffeted by the right of the party into doubling down on the Rwanda policy despite evidence that it is illegal; delaying net zero goals; and now heading for tax cuts and a fresh round of austerity, when experts warn it would be an unwise move during a recession. He has so far withstood the siren calls of those pressing him to go into the next election promising to withdraw from the European court of human rights, but the temptation will be there to do that as a clear dividing line with Starmer. The question is who Sunak will listen to, having sided with the right for much of his premiership so far. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Reform UK Byelections Rishi Sunak Labour analysis Share Reuse this content For Reform UK to win 13% of the vote in a byelection is a long way from the heady days of Ukip taking 60% in Clacton in 2014. However, that share of the vote was still a shock for the Conservatives on Friday morning, given that Reform is a newer party without the draw of Nigel Farage as leader or the rallying cause of Brexit behind it. When a rightwing government has lost two byelections to a centre-left opposition, it would seem a strange response for the prime minister to veer further to the right. Nevertheless, the loudest voices urging Sunak to change path on Friday were those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Conservative cabinet minister, and the founders of the New Conservatives parliamentary group – Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger – who, instead of seeing Labour as the biggest threat, claimed that uniting the “Tory family” of Reform and Conservative voters would be a winning strategy. Many polling experts were quick to say such an approach did not make sense. Straightforwardly adding the Conservative vote share of 25% and Reform’s 13% does not match the Labour vote share of 46% in Wellingborough. Luke Tryl of the thinktank More in Common pointed out that in any case it was “really important to remember not all Reform votes come from the Tories and even fewer would go back to the Tories in the absence of Reform, so you really can’t add the two vote shares together as a ‘reunited right’.” Sunak and the Tory party chair, Richard Holden, downplayed the impact of the Reform vote, suggesting it would melt away when people were confronted with the stark choice at a general election of who they wanted as the next prime minister. The risk for the Conservatives might be greater if Farage were to fully throw his weight behind Reform, which claims it plans to stand candidates in every seat. However, the former Ukip and Brexit party leader, who helped Boris Johnson in 2019 by standing aside in places with an incumbent Tory MP, is yet to decide whether he really wants to cause damage to the Conservatives. “The danger of Reform is exaggerated,” said a Tory MP in the One Nation group. “Byelections show protest parties getting many more votes, but things change in an actual general election.” Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Read more Conservative moderates tend to be far more worried about Labour – or in some seats the Liberal Democrats – taking their former voters on issues such as the cost of living, housing and the NHS. However, the right of the Conservative party still appeared determined to learn the wrong lesson from Labour’s byelection wins: not that there is a mood for change and that Starmer is consistently polling as more trusted and competent than Sunak, but that a minority of voters want more rightwing policies. More centrist Conservatives believe that is a wrong-headed conclusion and that elections are fought and won only on the centre ground of politics. Johnson’s 2019 victory was, after all, contested not just on the issue of Brexit but on a platform of increased public spending on police, hospitals and levelling up, which struck a chord in the north and the Midlands. Sunak has shown himself consistently buffeted by the right of the party into doubling down on the Rwanda policy despite evidence that it is illegal; delaying net zero goals; and now heading for tax cuts and a fresh round of austerity, when experts warn it would be an unwise move during a recession. He has so far withstood the siren calls of those pressing him to go into the next election promising to withdraw from the European court of human rights, but the temptation will be there to do that as a clear dividing line with Starmer. The question is who Sunak will listen to, having sided with the right for much of his premiership so far. For Reform UK to win 13% of the vote in a byelection is a long way from the heady days of Ukip taking 60% in Clacton in 2014. However, that share of the vote was still a shock for the Conservatives on Friday morning, given that Reform is a newer party without the draw of Nigel Farage as leader or the rallying cause of Brexit behind it. When a rightwing government has lost two byelections to a centre-left opposition, it would seem a strange response for the prime minister to veer further to the right. Nevertheless, the loudest voices urging Sunak to change path on Friday were those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Conservative cabinet minister, and the founders of the New Conservatives parliamentary group – Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger – who, instead of seeing Labour as the biggest threat, claimed that uniting the “Tory family” of Reform and Conservative voters would be a winning strategy. Many polling experts were quick to say such an approach did not make sense. Straightforwardly adding the Conservative vote share of 25% and Reform’s 13% does not match the Labour vote share of 46% in Wellingborough. Luke Tryl of the thinktank More in Common pointed out that in any case it was “really important to remember not all Reform votes come from the Tories and even fewer would go back to the Tories in the absence of Reform, so you really can’t add the two vote shares together as a ‘reunited right’.” Sunak and the Tory party chair, Richard Holden, downplayed the impact of the Reform vote, suggesting it would melt away when people were confronted with the stark choice at a general election of who they wanted as the next prime minister. The risk for the Conservatives might be greater if Farage were to fully throw his weight behind Reform, which claims it plans to stand candidates in every seat. However, the former Ukip and Brexit party leader, who helped Boris Johnson in 2019 by standing aside in places with an incumbent Tory MP, is yet to decide whether he really wants to cause damage to the Conservatives. “The danger of Reform is exaggerated,” said a Tory MP in the One Nation group. “Byelections show protest parties getting many more votes, but things change in an actual general election.” Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Read more Conservative moderates tend to be far more worried about Labour – or in some seats the Liberal Democrats – taking their former voters on issues such as the cost of living, housing and the NHS. However, the right of the Conservative party still appeared determined to learn the wrong lesson from Labour’s byelection wins: not that there is a mood for change and that Starmer is consistently polling as more trusted and competent than Sunak, but that a minority of voters want more rightwing policies. More centrist Conservatives believe that is a wrong-headed conclusion and that elections are fought and won only on the centre ground of politics. Johnson’s 2019 victory was, after all, contested not just on the issue of Brexit but on a platform of increased public spending on police, hospitals and levelling up, which struck a chord in the north and the Midlands. Sunak has shown himself consistently buffeted by the right of the party into doubling down on the Rwanda policy despite evidence that it is illegal; delaying net zero goals; and now heading for tax cuts and a fresh round of austerity, when experts warn it would be an unwise move during a recession. He has so far withstood the siren calls of those pressing him to go into the next election promising to withdraw from the European court of human rights, but the temptation will be there to do that as a clear dividing line with Starmer. The question is who Sunak will listen to, having sided with the right for much of his premiership so far. For Reform UK to win 13% of the vote in a byelection is a long way from the heady days of Ukip taking 60% in Clacton in 2014. However, that share of the vote was still a shock for the Conservatives on Friday morning, given that Reform is a newer party without the draw of Nigel Farage as leader or the rallying cause of Brexit behind it. When a rightwing government has lost two byelections to a centre-left opposition, it would seem a strange response for the prime minister to veer further to the right. Nevertheless, the loudest voices urging Sunak to change path on Friday were those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Conservative cabinet minister, and the founders of the New Conservatives parliamentary group – Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger – who, instead of seeing Labour as the biggest threat, claimed that uniting the “Tory family” of Reform and Conservative voters would be a winning strategy. Many polling experts were quick to say such an approach did not make sense. Straightforwardly adding the Conservative vote share of 25% and Reform’s 13% does not match the Labour vote share of 46% in Wellingborough. Luke Tryl of the thinktank More in Common pointed out that in any case it was “really important to remember not all Reform votes come from the Tories and even fewer would go back to the Tories in the absence of Reform, so you really can’t add the two vote shares together as a ‘reunited right’.” Sunak and the Tory party chair, Richard Holden, downplayed the impact of the Reform vote, suggesting it would melt away when people were confronted with the stark choice at a general election of who they wanted as the next prime minister. The risk for the Conservatives might be greater if Farage were to fully throw his weight behind Reform, which claims it plans to stand candidates in every seat. However, the former Ukip and Brexit party leader, who helped Boris Johnson in 2019 by standing aside in places with an incumbent Tory MP, is yet to decide whether he really wants to cause damage to the Conservatives. “The danger of Reform is exaggerated,” said a Tory MP in the One Nation group. “Byelections show protest parties getting many more votes, but things change in an actual general election.” Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Read more Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Read more Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Read more Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Tory MPs warn Sunak veering further right would be ‘politically disastrous’ Conservative moderates tend to be far more worried about Labour – or in some seats the Liberal Democrats – taking their former voters on issues such as the cost of living, housing and the NHS. However, the right of the Conservative party still appeared determined to learn the wrong lesson from Labour’s byelection wins: not that there is a mood for change and that Starmer is consistently polling as more trusted and competent than Sunak, but that a minority of voters want more rightwing policies. More centrist Conservatives believe that is a wrong-headed conclusion and that elections are fought and won only on the centre ground of politics. Johnson’s 2019 victory was, after all, contested not just on the issue of Brexit but on a platform of increased public spending on police, hospitals and levelling up, which struck a chord in the north and the Midlands. Sunak has shown himself consistently buffeted by the right of the party into doubling down on the Rwanda policy despite evidence that it is illegal; delaying net zero goals; and now heading for tax cuts and a fresh round of austerity, when experts warn it would be an unwise move during a recession. He has so far withstood the siren calls of those pressing him to go into the next election promising to withdraw from the European court of human rights, but the temptation will be there to do that as a clear dividing line with Starmer. The question is who Sunak will listen to, having sided with the right for much of his premiership so far. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Reform UK Byelections Rishi Sunak Labour analysis Share Reuse this content Conservatives Reform UK Byelections Rishi Sunak Labour analysis |
US unions target the housing affordability crisis as their ‘biggest issue’
The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old US unions target the housing affordability crisis as their ‘biggest issue’ This article is more than 1 year old Organized labor across the country is now setting its sights on housing costs as rents and mortgages continue to soar As housing has become a top issue in strikes and protests in recent months, US unions are pushing for change and backing innovative solutions for the housing affordability crisis. ‘It’s going to be historic’: US flight attendants picket at major airports Read more With US house prices and rents rising in recent years, and high interest rates and inflation taking their toll, housing affordability has become a major issue at the bargaining table for US labor unions. Many workers are facing 60-, 90-, even 120-minute commutes to work because they cannott afford to live near their jobs. Housing has been a big issue in the recent rolling strikes by thousands of Los Angeles hotel workers . In Oregon, 400 Yamhill county government employees went on strike in November because, the union said, “many workers are not able to afford housing”. In the Twin Cities, worker dismay about large rent hikes is fueling plans for a multi-union strike by up to 30,000 workers in March. When San Francisco hotel workers hold contract talks later this year, housing affordability will be a top issue. “Housing is a very important issue for our members,” said Anand Singh, president of the Unite Here hotel workers’ union in San Francisco. “Our members can’t absorb the sudden rent increases they’ve seen. They’re evicted from their homes. They’re pushed further and further down the housing ladder.” Milagros Vela, a housekeeper at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square, said her monthly rent jumped from $1,800 to $2,800 during the pandemic, and as a result, she moved to a less expensive town, Antioch, 45 miles (72km) east of San Francisco. “Many days it’s a two-hour commute each way,” Vela said. “It’s very frustrating. It prevents me from spending time with my daughters and grandkids.” The affordability crisis has spurred many responses. Last November, the United Food and Commercial Workers and other unions helped win approval of a ballot initiative in Tacoma , Washington, that bans cold-weather evictions between 1 November and 1 April and bars evicting households with students or educators anytime during the school year. The measure also requires landlords that raise rents by 5% or more to offer two months’ relocation assistance to tenants – and for rent increases of 10% or more, three months’ assistance. Other unions have taken the issue head on, for instance, by lobbying for the building of more affordable housing. With the teachers’ union complaining that educators can’t afford to live in the Miami area, the Miami-Dade county school district is planning to convert several schools into teacher housing. In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 hotel and restaurant workers, has increased its down payment assistance to $25,000 for union members buying their first homes. Elizabeth Bahn, a crisis counselor for the San Jose school district, wishes she could afford to live in San Jose, but many modest, 1,200-sq-ft homes there can often cost $1.2m. Bahn instead lives 90 minutes away in Monterey county. “I would love to live closer to where I work, but it’s almost impossible,” she said. View image in fullscreen Writers Guild members support striking hotel workers outside the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica on 13 July 2023. Photograph: Ringo Chiu/SOPA Images/Shutterstock The San José Teachers Association is urging the school district to build subsidized housing for teachers on unused or underused school property. “Housing is probably the biggest issue for us,” said Renata Sanchez, the union’s president. “It totally messes with people’s work-life balance. We are at our schools a minimum of seven hours a day, and when you add in up to four hours of commuting time each day, that’s already half of your day. Our members are having to make hard decisions: am I going to do what I want to do for my students or do I go home to be a partner or parent to my own family?” One possible model for San Jose is Casa del Maestro , a 70-apartment complex in nearby Santa Clara which that community’s school district built. It rents apartments to teachers at 80% below market rate for up to seven years, helping them save up for home ownership. Margie Wysocki, president of United Teachers of Santa Clara, said market rents are so high that some educators have taken second jobs. “Some teachers have to take roommates. Some live with their parents,” she said. And the housing crunch is often worse for school janitors, teacher aides and cafeteria workers. In the Twin Cities, labor leaders are threatening an innovative, multi-union strike next month with housing affordability a leading issue, along with higher pay and improving schools. Unions representing 1,000 airport workers, 2,500 security guards, 4,500 janitors, and thousands of teachers and support staff have coordinated their contract expiration dates so they can all go on strike in early March. The unions want Minneapolis to enact a law limiting rent increases and are asking for guarantees that if government money in the Twin Cities is used to convert office buildings to apartments, those projects will produce affordable housing. Eva Lopez, a janitor at a major corporation’s offices in Minneapolis, complained that rent for her two-bedroom apartment recently jumped by $350 to $1,600, a 28% increase. “It’s very difficult to keep up with the rent increases with the wages we’re earning,” Lopez said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Greg Nammacher, president of an SEIU local representing Twin Cities janitors and security guards, said: “Our survey of our members found that by a multiple of two housing was their biggest issue outside of wages and benefits.” Today’s labor activism about housing is in many ways a return to the past. “During the first three-quarters of the 20th century, unions were a strong voice and advocate for affordable housing for working families,” said Peter Dreier, an urban policy expert at Occidental College in Los Angeles. “They built their own union-sponsored housing. They fought for decent public housing. They fought for better code enforcement to rid cities of slums.” Their focus on housing faded in the 1980s as unions declined and laid off many staffers. Los Angeles unions are leading the way in pushing innovative ideas to finance affordable housing. Working with many community groups, LA unions won passage of a “mansion tax” ballot measure with 58% of the vote. It creates a 4% real estate transfer tax on property sales exceeding $5m and 5.5% on sales above $10m. Supporters say the tax, which hits a tiny percentage of sales, will collect at least $600m a year to finance affordable housing and provide subsidies to prevent evictions. Even as LA’s real estate industry has challenged the tax in court – it lost the first round – officials in several other cities have expressed interest in adopting a similar scheme to finance housing. “In LA there is an extreme need for housing. Thousands upon thousands of Angelenos are sleeping on the streets every night,” said Chris Hannan, president of the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, a union group. “We need a well-rounded approach to get people housing and make housing truly affordable. That’s absolutely something the labor movement should be involved in.” Hannan said LA’s mansion tax “should be a model across the country”. As part of its wave of strikes, the LA hotel workers’ union demanded that hotels create a 7% tax on guests , with the money helping finance affordable housing for hospitality workers. “One hundred of our members said they lost their homes during the pandemic,” said Kurt Petersen, the union’s co-president. “Our fight is about who can live in LA, about who can afford to live in LA.” His union failed to persuade hotels to agree to the 7% tax, but it won large raises to help union members afford rising rents. “There’s a long way to go in solving the housing crisis,” Petersen said. “We feel our union can play a part in solving it.” Explore more on these topics Housing US unions US income inequality California Minneapolis Inflation Inequality features Share Reuse this content The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old US unions target the housing affordability crisis as their ‘biggest issue’ This article is more than 1 year old Organized labor across the country is now setting its sights on housing costs as rents and mortgages continue to soar As housing has become a top issue in strikes and protests in recent months, US unions are pushing for change and backing innovative solutions for the housing affordability crisis. ‘It’s going to be historic’: US flight attendants picket at major airports Read more With US house prices and rents rising in recent years, and high interest rates and inflation taking their toll, housing affordability has become a major issue at the bargaining table for US labor unions. Many workers are facing 60-, 90-, even 120-minute commutes to work because they cannott afford to live near their jobs. Housing has been a big issue in the recent rolling strikes by thousands of Los Angeles hotel workers . In Oregon, 400 Yamhill county government employees went on strike in November because, the union said, “many workers are not able to afford housing”. In the Twin Cities, worker dismay about large rent hikes is fueling plans for a multi-union strike by up to 30,000 workers in March. When San Francisco hotel workers hold contract talks later this year, housing affordability will be a top issue. “Housing is a very important issue for our members,” said Anand Singh, president of the Unite Here hotel workers’ union in San Francisco. “Our members can’t absorb the sudden rent increases they’ve seen. They’re evicted from their homes. They’re pushed further and further down the housing ladder.” Milagros Vela, a housekeeper at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square, said her monthly rent jumped from $1,800 to $2,800 during the pandemic, and as a result, she moved to a less expensive town, Antioch, 45 miles (72km) east of San Francisco. “Many days it’s a two-hour commute each way,” Vela said. “It’s very frustrating. It prevents me from spending time with my daughters and grandkids.” The affordability crisis has spurred many responses. Last November, the United Food and Commercial Workers and other unions helped win approval of a ballot initiative in Tacoma , Washington, that bans cold-weather evictions between 1 November and 1 April and bars evicting households with students or educators anytime during the school year. The measure also requires landlords that raise rents by 5% or more to offer two months’ relocation assistance to tenants – and for rent increases of 10% or more, three months’ assistance. Other unions have taken the issue head on, for instance, by lobbying for the building of more affordable housing. With the teachers’ union complaining that educators can’t afford to live in the Miami area, the Miami-Dade county school district is planning to convert several schools into teacher housing. In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 hotel and restaurant workers, has increased its down payment assistance to $25,000 for union members buying their first homes. Elizabeth Bahn, a crisis counselor for the San Jose school district, wishes she could afford to live in San Jose, but many modest, 1,200-sq-ft homes there can often cost $1.2m. Bahn instead lives 90 minutes away in Monterey county. “I would love to live closer to where I work, but it’s almost impossible,” she said. View image in fullscreen Writers Guild members support striking hotel workers outside the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica on 13 July 2023. Photograph: Ringo Chiu/SOPA Images/Shutterstock The San José Teachers Association is urging the school district to build subsidized housing for teachers on unused or underused school property. “Housing is probably the biggest issue for us,” said Renata Sanchez, the union’s president. “It totally messes with people’s work-life balance. We are at our schools a minimum of seven hours a day, and when you add in up to four hours of commuting time each day, that’s already half of your day. Our members are having to make hard decisions: am I going to do what I want to do for my students or do I go home to be a partner or parent to my own family?” One possible model for San Jose is Casa del Maestro , a 70-apartment complex in nearby Santa Clara which that community’s school district built. It rents apartments to teachers at 80% below market rate for up to seven years, helping them save up for home ownership. Margie Wysocki, president of United Teachers of Santa Clara, said market rents are so high that some educators have taken second jobs. “Some teachers have to take roommates. Some live with their parents,” she said. And the housing crunch is often worse for school janitors, teacher aides and cafeteria workers. In the Twin Cities, labor leaders are threatening an innovative, multi-union strike next month with housing affordability a leading issue, along with higher pay and improving schools. Unions representing 1,000 airport workers, 2,500 security guards, 4,500 janitors, and thousands of teachers and support staff have coordinated their contract expiration dates so they can all go on strike in early March. The unions want Minneapolis to enact a law limiting rent increases and are asking for guarantees that if government money in the Twin Cities is used to convert office buildings to apartments, those projects will produce affordable housing. Eva Lopez, a janitor at a major corporation’s offices in Minneapolis, complained that rent for her two-bedroom apartment recently jumped by $350 to $1,600, a 28% increase. “It’s very difficult to keep up with the rent increases with the wages we’re earning,” Lopez said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Greg Nammacher, president of an SEIU local representing Twin Cities janitors and security guards, said: “Our survey of our members found that by a multiple of two housing was their biggest issue outside of wages and benefits.” Today’s labor activism about housing is in many ways a return to the past. “During the first three-quarters of the 20th century, unions were a strong voice and advocate for affordable housing for working families,” said Peter Dreier, an urban policy expert at Occidental College in Los Angeles. “They built their own union-sponsored housing. They fought for decent public housing. They fought for better code enforcement to rid cities of slums.” Their focus on housing faded in the 1980s as unions declined and laid off many staffers. Los Angeles unions are leading the way in pushing innovative ideas to finance affordable housing. Working with many community groups, LA unions won passage of a “mansion tax” ballot measure with 58% of the vote. It creates a 4% real estate transfer tax on property sales exceeding $5m and 5.5% on sales above $10m. Supporters say the tax, which hits a tiny percentage of sales, will collect at least $600m a year to finance affordable housing and provide subsidies to prevent evictions. Even as LA’s real estate industry has challenged the tax in court – it lost the first round – officials in several other cities have expressed interest in adopting a similar scheme to finance housing. “In LA there is an extreme need for housing. Thousands upon thousands of Angelenos are sleeping on the streets every night,” said Chris Hannan, president of the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, a union group. “We need a well-rounded approach to get people housing and make housing truly affordable. That’s absolutely something the labor movement should be involved in.” Hannan said LA’s mansion tax “should be a model across the country”. As part of its wave of strikes, the LA hotel workers’ union demanded that hotels create a 7% tax on guests , with the money helping finance affordable housing for hospitality workers. “One hundred of our members said they lost their homes during the pandemic,” said Kurt Petersen, the union’s co-president. “Our fight is about who can live in LA, about who can afford to live in LA.” His union failed to persuade hotels to agree to the 7% tax, but it won large raises to help union members afford rising rents. “There’s a long way to go in solving the housing crisis,” Petersen said. “We feel our union can play a part in solving it.” Explore more on these topics Housing US unions US income inequality California Minneapolis Inflation Inequality features Share Reuse this content The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images The Culinary Union in Las Vegas, which threatened a strike earlier in February, assists members with up to $25,000 for down payments on homes. Photograph: Patrick T Fallon/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old US unions target the housing affordability crisis as their ‘biggest issue’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old US unions target the housing affordability crisis as their ‘biggest issue’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old US unions target the housing affordability crisis as their ‘biggest issue’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Organized labor across the country is now setting its sights on housing costs as rents and mortgages continue to soar Organized labor across the country is now setting its sights on housing costs as rents and mortgages continue to soar Organized labor across the country is now setting its sights on housing costs as rents and mortgages continue to soar As housing has become a top issue in strikes and protests in recent months, US unions are pushing for change and backing innovative solutions for the housing affordability crisis. ‘It’s going to be historic’: US flight attendants picket at major airports Read more With US house prices and rents rising in recent years, and high interest rates and inflation taking their toll, housing affordability has become a major issue at the bargaining table for US labor unions. Many workers are facing 60-, 90-, even 120-minute commutes to work because they cannott afford to live near their jobs. Housing has been a big issue in the recent rolling strikes by thousands of Los Angeles hotel workers . In Oregon, 400 Yamhill county government employees went on strike in November because, the union said, “many workers are not able to afford housing”. In the Twin Cities, worker dismay about large rent hikes is fueling plans for a multi-union strike by up to 30,000 workers in March. When San Francisco hotel workers hold contract talks later this year, housing affordability will be a top issue. “Housing is a very important issue for our members,” said Anand Singh, president of the Unite Here hotel workers’ union in San Francisco. “Our members can’t absorb the sudden rent increases they’ve seen. They’re evicted from their homes. They’re pushed further and further down the housing ladder.” Milagros Vela, a housekeeper at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square, said her monthly rent jumped from $1,800 to $2,800 during the pandemic, and as a result, she moved to a less expensive town, Antioch, 45 miles (72km) east of San Francisco. “Many days it’s a two-hour commute each way,” Vela said. “It’s very frustrating. It prevents me from spending time with my daughters and grandkids.” The affordability crisis has spurred many responses. Last November, the United Food and Commercial Workers and other unions helped win approval of a ballot initiative in Tacoma , Washington, that bans cold-weather evictions between 1 November and 1 April and bars evicting households with students or educators anytime during the school year. The measure also requires landlords that raise rents by 5% or more to offer two months’ relocation assistance to tenants – and for rent increases of 10% or more, three months’ assistance. Other unions have taken the issue head on, for instance, by lobbying for the building of more affordable housing. With the teachers’ union complaining that educators can’t afford to live in the Miami area, the Miami-Dade county school district is planning to convert several schools into teacher housing. In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 hotel and restaurant workers, has increased its down payment assistance to $25,000 for union members buying their first homes. Elizabeth Bahn, a crisis counselor for the San Jose school district, wishes she could afford to live in San Jose, but many modest, 1,200-sq-ft homes there can often cost $1.2m. Bahn instead lives 90 minutes away in Monterey county. “I would love to live closer to where I work, but it’s almost impossible,” she said. View image in fullscreen Writers Guild members support striking hotel workers outside the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica on 13 July 2023. Photograph: Ringo Chiu/SOPA Images/Shutterstock The San José Teachers Association is urging the school district to build subsidized housing for teachers on unused or underused school property. “Housing is probably the biggest issue for us,” said Renata Sanchez, the union’s president. “It totally messes with people’s work-life balance. We are at our schools a minimum of seven hours a day, and when you add in up to four hours of commuting time each day, that’s already half of your day. Our members are having to make hard decisions: am I going to do what I want to do for my students or do I go home to be a partner or parent to my own family?” One possible model for San Jose is Casa del Maestro , a 70-apartment complex in nearby Santa Clara which that community’s school district built. It rents apartments to teachers at 80% below market rate for up to seven years, helping them save up for home ownership. Margie Wysocki, president of United Teachers of Santa Clara, said market rents are so high that some educators have taken second jobs. “Some teachers have to take roommates. Some live with their parents,” she said. And the housing crunch is often worse for school janitors, teacher aides and cafeteria workers. In the Twin Cities, labor leaders are threatening an innovative, multi-union strike next month with housing affordability a leading issue, along with higher pay and improving schools. Unions representing 1,000 airport workers, 2,500 security guards, 4,500 janitors, and thousands of teachers and support staff have coordinated their contract expiration dates so they can all go on strike in early March. The unions want Minneapolis to enact a law limiting rent increases and are asking for guarantees that if government money in the Twin Cities is used to convert office buildings to apartments, those projects will produce affordable housing. Eva Lopez, a janitor at a major corporation’s offices in Minneapolis, complained that rent for her two-bedroom apartment recently jumped by $350 to $1,600, a 28% increase. “It’s very difficult to keep up with the rent increases with the wages we’re earning,” Lopez said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Greg Nammacher, president of an SEIU local representing Twin Cities janitors and security guards, said: “Our survey of our members found that by a multiple of two housing was their biggest issue outside of wages and benefits.” Today’s labor activism about housing is in many ways a return to the past. “During the first three-quarters of the 20th century, unions were a strong voice and advocate for affordable housing for working families,” said Peter Dreier, an urban policy expert at Occidental College in Los Angeles. “They built their own union-sponsored housing. They fought for decent public housing. They fought for better code enforcement to rid cities of slums.” Their focus on housing faded in the 1980s as unions declined and laid off many staffers. Los Angeles unions are leading the way in pushing innovative ideas to finance affordable housing. Working with many community groups, LA unions won passage of a “mansion tax” ballot measure with 58% of the vote. It creates a 4% real estate transfer tax on property sales exceeding $5m and 5.5% on sales above $10m. Supporters say the tax, which hits a tiny percentage of sales, will collect at least $600m a year to finance affordable housing and provide subsidies to prevent evictions. Even as LA’s real estate industry has challenged the tax in court – it lost the first round – officials in several other cities have expressed interest in adopting a similar scheme to finance housing. “In LA there is an extreme need for housing. Thousands upon thousands of Angelenos are sleeping on the streets every night,” said Chris Hannan, president of the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, a union group. “We need a well-rounded approach to get people housing and make housing truly affordable. That’s absolutely something the labor movement should be involved in.” Hannan said LA’s mansion tax “should be a model across the country”. As part of its wave of strikes, the LA hotel workers’ union demanded that hotels create a 7% tax on guests , with the money helping finance affordable housing for hospitality workers. “One hundred of our members said they lost their homes during the pandemic,” said Kurt Petersen, the union’s co-president. “Our fight is about who can live in LA, about who can afford to live in LA.” His union failed to persuade hotels to agree to the 7% tax, but it won large raises to help union members afford rising rents. “There’s a long way to go in solving the housing crisis,” Petersen said. “We feel our union can play a part in solving it.” Explore more on these topics Housing US unions US income inequality California Minneapolis Inflation Inequality features Share Reuse this content As housing has become a top issue in strikes and protests in recent months, US unions are pushing for change and backing innovative solutions for the housing affordability crisis. ‘It’s going to be historic’: US flight attendants picket at major airports Read more With US house prices and rents rising in recent years, and high interest rates and inflation taking their toll, housing affordability has become a major issue at the bargaining table for US labor unions. Many workers are facing 60-, 90-, even 120-minute commutes to work because they cannott afford to live near their jobs. Housing has been a big issue in the recent rolling strikes by thousands of Los Angeles hotel workers . In Oregon, 400 Yamhill county government employees went on strike in November because, the union said, “many workers are not able to afford housing”. In the Twin Cities, worker dismay about large rent hikes is fueling plans for a multi-union strike by up to 30,000 workers in March. When San Francisco hotel workers hold contract talks later this year, housing affordability will be a top issue. “Housing is a very important issue for our members,” said Anand Singh, president of the Unite Here hotel workers’ union in San Francisco. “Our members can’t absorb the sudden rent increases they’ve seen. They’re evicted from their homes. They’re pushed further and further down the housing ladder.” Milagros Vela, a housekeeper at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square, said her monthly rent jumped from $1,800 to $2,800 during the pandemic, and as a result, she moved to a less expensive town, Antioch, 45 miles (72km) east of San Francisco. “Many days it’s a two-hour commute each way,” Vela said. “It’s very frustrating. It prevents me from spending time with my daughters and grandkids.” The affordability crisis has spurred many responses. Last November, the United Food and Commercial Workers and other unions helped win approval of a ballot initiative in Tacoma , Washington, that bans cold-weather evictions between 1 November and 1 April and bars evicting households with students or educators anytime during the school year. The measure also requires landlords that raise rents by 5% or more to offer two months’ relocation assistance to tenants – and for rent increases of 10% or more, three months’ assistance. Other unions have taken the issue head on, for instance, by lobbying for the building of more affordable housing. With the teachers’ union complaining that educators can’t afford to live in the Miami area, the Miami-Dade county school district is planning to convert several schools into teacher housing. In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 hotel and restaurant workers, has increased its down payment assistance to $25,000 for union members buying their first homes. Elizabeth Bahn, a crisis counselor for the San Jose school district, wishes she could afford to live in San Jose, but many modest, 1,200-sq-ft homes there can often cost $1.2m. Bahn instead lives 90 minutes away in Monterey county. “I would love to live closer to where I work, but it’s almost impossible,” she said. View image in fullscreen Writers Guild members support striking hotel workers outside the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica on 13 July 2023. Photograph: Ringo Chiu/SOPA Images/Shutterstock The San José Teachers Association is urging the school district to build subsidized housing for teachers on unused or underused school property. “Housing is probably the biggest issue for us,” said Renata Sanchez, the union’s president. “It totally messes with people’s work-life balance. We are at our schools a minimum of seven hours a day, and when you add in up to four hours of commuting time each day, that’s already half of your day. Our members are having to make hard decisions: am I going to do what I want to do for my students or do I go home to be a partner or parent to my own family?” One possible model for San Jose is Casa del Maestro , a 70-apartment complex in nearby Santa Clara which that community’s school district built. It rents apartments to teachers at 80% below market rate for up to seven years, helping them save up for home ownership. Margie Wysocki, president of United Teachers of Santa Clara, said market rents are so high that some educators have taken second jobs. “Some teachers have to take roommates. Some live with their parents,” she said. And the housing crunch is often worse for school janitors, teacher aides and cafeteria workers. In the Twin Cities, labor leaders are threatening an innovative, multi-union strike next month with housing affordability a leading issue, along with higher pay and improving schools. Unions representing 1,000 airport workers, 2,500 security guards, 4,500 janitors, and thousands of teachers and support staff have coordinated their contract expiration dates so they can all go on strike in early March. The unions want Minneapolis to enact a law limiting rent increases and are asking for guarantees that if government money in the Twin Cities is used to convert office buildings to apartments, those projects will produce affordable housing. Eva Lopez, a janitor at a major corporation’s offices in Minneapolis, complained that rent for her two-bedroom apartment recently jumped by $350 to $1,600, a 28% increase. “It’s very difficult to keep up with the rent increases with the wages we’re earning,” Lopez said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Greg Nammacher, president of an SEIU local representing Twin Cities janitors and security guards, said: “Our survey of our members found that by a multiple of two housing was their biggest issue outside of wages and benefits.” Today’s labor activism about housing is in many ways a return to the past. “During the first three-quarters of the 20th century, unions were a strong voice and advocate for affordable housing for working families,” said Peter Dreier, an urban policy expert at Occidental College in Los Angeles. “They built their own union-sponsored housing. They fought for decent public housing. They fought for better code enforcement to rid cities of slums.” Their focus on housing faded in the 1980s as unions declined and laid off many staffers. Los Angeles unions are leading the way in pushing innovative ideas to finance affordable housing. Working with many community groups, LA unions won passage of a “mansion tax” ballot measure with 58% of the vote. It creates a 4% real estate transfer tax on property sales exceeding $5m and 5.5% on sales above $10m. Supporters say the tax, which hits a tiny percentage of sales, will collect at least $600m a year to finance affordable housing and provide subsidies to prevent evictions. Even as LA’s real estate industry has challenged the tax in court – it lost the first round – officials in several other cities have expressed interest in adopting a similar scheme to finance housing. “In LA there is an extreme need for housing. Thousands upon thousands of Angelenos are sleeping on the streets every night,” said Chris Hannan, president of the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, a union group. “We need a well-rounded approach to get people housing and make housing truly affordable. That’s absolutely something the labor movement should be involved in.” Hannan said LA’s mansion tax “should be a model across the country”. As part of its wave of strikes, the LA hotel workers’ union demanded that hotels create a 7% tax on guests , with the money helping finance affordable housing for hospitality workers. “One hundred of our members said they lost their homes during the pandemic,” said Kurt Petersen, the union’s co-president. “Our fight is about who can live in LA, about who can afford to live in LA.” His union failed to persuade hotels to agree to the 7% tax, but it won large raises to help union members afford rising rents. “There’s a long way to go in solving the housing crisis,” Petersen said. “We feel our union can play a part in solving it.” Explore more on these topics Housing US unions US income inequality California Minneapolis Inflation Inequality features Share Reuse this content As housing has become a top issue in strikes and protests in recent months, US unions are pushing for change and backing innovative solutions for the housing affordability crisis. ‘It’s going to be historic’: US flight attendants picket at major airports Read more With US house prices and rents rising in recent years, and high interest rates and inflation taking their toll, housing affordability has become a major issue at the bargaining table for US labor unions. Many workers are facing 60-, 90-, even 120-minute commutes to work because they cannott afford to live near their jobs. Housing has been a big issue in the recent rolling strikes by thousands of Los Angeles hotel workers . In Oregon, 400 Yamhill county government employees went on strike in November because, the union said, “many workers are not able to afford housing”. In the Twin Cities, worker dismay about large rent hikes is fueling plans for a multi-union strike by up to 30,000 workers in March. When San Francisco hotel workers hold contract talks later this year, housing affordability will be a top issue. “Housing is a very important issue for our members,” said Anand Singh, president of the Unite Here hotel workers’ union in San Francisco. “Our members can’t absorb the sudden rent increases they’ve seen. They’re evicted from their homes. They’re pushed further and further down the housing ladder.” Milagros Vela, a housekeeper at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square, said her monthly rent jumped from $1,800 to $2,800 during the pandemic, and as a result, she moved to a less expensive town, Antioch, 45 miles (72km) east of San Francisco. “Many days it’s a two-hour commute each way,” Vela said. “It’s very frustrating. It prevents me from spending time with my daughters and grandkids.” The affordability crisis has spurred many responses. Last November, the United Food and Commercial Workers and other unions helped win approval of a ballot initiative in Tacoma , Washington, that bans cold-weather evictions between 1 November and 1 April and bars evicting households with students or educators anytime during the school year. The measure also requires landlords that raise rents by 5% or more to offer two months’ relocation assistance to tenants – and for rent increases of 10% or more, three months’ assistance. Other unions have taken the issue head on, for instance, by lobbying for the building of more affordable housing. With the teachers’ union complaining that educators can’t afford to live in the Miami area, the Miami-Dade county school district is planning to convert several schools into teacher housing. In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 hotel and restaurant workers, has increased its down payment assistance to $25,000 for union members buying their first homes. Elizabeth Bahn, a crisis counselor for the San Jose school district, wishes she could afford to live in San Jose, but many modest, 1,200-sq-ft homes there can often cost $1.2m. Bahn instead lives 90 minutes away in Monterey county. “I would love to live closer to where I work, but it’s almost impossible,” she said. View image in fullscreen Writers Guild members support striking hotel workers outside the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica on 13 July 2023. Photograph: Ringo Chiu/SOPA Images/Shutterstock The San José Teachers Association is urging the school district to build subsidized housing for teachers on unused or underused school property. “Housing is probably the biggest issue for us,” said Renata Sanchez, the union’s president. “It totally messes with people’s work-life balance. We are at our schools a minimum of seven hours a day, and when you add in up to four hours of commuting time each day, that’s already half of your day. Our members are having to make hard decisions: am I going to do what I want to do for my students or do I go home to be a partner or parent to my own family?” One possible model for San Jose is Casa del Maestro , a 70-apartment complex in nearby Santa Clara which that community’s school district built. It rents apartments to teachers at 80% below market rate for up to seven years, helping them save up for home ownership. Margie Wysocki, president of United Teachers of Santa Clara, said market rents are so high that some educators have taken second jobs. “Some teachers have to take roommates. Some live with their parents,” she said. And the housing crunch is often worse for school janitors, teacher aides and cafeteria workers. In the Twin Cities, labor leaders are threatening an innovative, multi-union strike next month with housing affordability a leading issue, along with higher pay and improving schools. Unions representing 1,000 airport workers, 2,500 security guards, 4,500 janitors, and thousands of teachers and support staff have coordinated their contract expiration dates so they can all go on strike in early March. The unions want Minneapolis to enact a law limiting rent increases and are asking for guarantees that if government money in the Twin Cities is used to convert office buildings to apartments, those projects will produce affordable housing. Eva Lopez, a janitor at a major corporation’s offices in Minneapolis, complained that rent for her two-bedroom apartment recently jumped by $350 to $1,600, a 28% increase. “It’s very difficult to keep up with the rent increases with the wages we’re earning,” Lopez said. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Greg Nammacher, president of an SEIU local representing Twin Cities janitors and security guards, said: “Our survey of our members found that by a multiple of two housing was their biggest issue outside of wages and benefits.” Today’s labor activism about housing is in many ways a return to the past. “During the first three-quarters of the 20th century, unions were a strong voice and advocate for affordable housing for working families,” said Peter Dreier, an urban policy expert at Occidental College in Los Angeles. “They built their own union-sponsored housing. They fought for decent public housing. They fought for better code enforcement to rid cities of slums.” Their focus on housing faded in the 1980s as unions declined and laid off many staffers. Los Angeles unions are leading the way in pushing innovative ideas to finance affordable housing. Working with many community groups, LA unions won passage of a “mansion tax” ballot measure with 58% of the vote. It creates a 4% real estate transfer tax on property sales exceeding $5m and 5.5% on sales above $10m. Supporters say the tax, which hits a tiny percentage of sales, will collect at least $600m a year to finance affordable housing and provide subsidies to prevent evictions. Even as LA’s real estate industry has challenged the tax in court – it lost the first round – officials in several other cities have expressed interest in adopting a similar scheme to finance housing. “In LA there is an extreme need for housing. Thousands upon thousands of Angelenos are sleeping on the streets every night,” said Chris Hannan, president of the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, a union group. “We need a well-rounded approach to get people housing and make housing truly affordable. That’s absolutely something the labor movement should be involved in.” Hannan said LA’s mansion tax “should be a model across the country”. As part of its wave of strikes, the LA hotel workers’ union demanded that hotels create a 7% tax on guests , with the money helping finance affordable housing for hospitality workers. “One hundred of our members said they lost their homes during the pandemic,” said Kurt Petersen, the union’s co-president. “Our fight is about who can live in LA, about who can afford to live in LA.” His union failed to persuade hotels to agree to the 7% tax, but it won large raises to help union members afford rising rents. “There’s a long way to go in solving the housing crisis,” Petersen said. “We feel our union can play a part in solving it.” As housing has become a top issue in strikes and protests in recent months, US unions are pushing for change and backing innovative solutions for the housing affordability crisis. ‘It’s going to be historic’: US flight attendants picket at major airports Read more With US house prices and rents rising in recent years, and high interest rates and inflation taking their toll, housing affordability has become a major issue at the bargaining table for US labor unions. Many workers are facing 60-, 90-, even 120-minute commutes to work because they cannott afford to live near their jobs. Housing has been a big issue in the recent rolling strikes by thousands of Los Angeles hotel workers . In Oregon, 400 Yamhill county government employees went on strike in November because, the union said, “many workers are not able to afford housing”. In the Twin Cities, worker dismay about large rent hikes is fueling plans for a multi-union strike by up to 30,000 workers in March. When San Francisco hotel workers hold contract talks later this year, housing affordability will be a top issue. “Housing is a very important issue for our members,” said Anand Singh, president of the Unite Here hotel workers’ union in San Francisco. “Our members can’t absorb the sudden rent increases they’ve seen. They’re evicted from their homes. They’re pushed further and further down the housing ladder.” Milagros Vela, a housekeeper at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square, said her monthly rent jumped from $1,800 to $2,800 during the pandemic, and as a result, she moved to a less expensive town, Antioch, 45 miles (72km) east of San Francisco. “Many days it’s a two-hour commute each way,” Vela said. “It’s very frustrating. It prevents me from spending time with my daughters and grandkids.” The affordability crisis has spurred many responses. Last November, the United Food and Commercial Workers and other unions helped win approval of a ballot initiative in Tacoma , Washington, that bans cold-weather evictions between 1 November and 1 April and bars evicting households with students or educators anytime during the school year. The measure also requires landlords that raise rents by 5% or more to offer two months’ relocation assistance to tenants – and for rent increases of 10% or more, three months’ assistance. Other unions have taken the issue head on, for instance, by lobbying for the building of more affordable housing. With the teachers’ union complaining that educators can’t afford to live in the Miami area, the Miami-Dade county school district is planning to convert several schools into teacher housing. In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 hotel and restaurant workers, has increased its down payment assistance to $25,000 for union members buying their first homes. Elizabeth Bahn, a crisis counselor for the San Jose school district, wishes she could afford to live in San Jose, but many modest, 1,200-sq-ft homes there can often cost $1.2m. Bahn instead lives 90 minutes away in Monterey county. “I would love to live closer to where I work, but it’s almost impossible,” she said. View image in fullscreen Writers Guild members support striking hotel workers outside the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica on 13 July 2023. Photograph: Ringo Chiu/SOPA Images/Shutterstock The San José Teachers Association is urging the school district to build subsidized housing for teachers on unused or underused school property. “Housing is probably the biggest issue for us,” said Renata Sanchez, the union’s president. “It totally messes with people’s work-life balance. We are at our schools a minimum of seven hours a day, and when you add in up to four hours of commuting time each day, that’s already half of your day. Our members are having to make hard decisions: am I going to do what I want to do for my students or do I go home to be a partner or parent to my own family?” One possible model for San Jose is Casa del Maestro , a 70-apartment complex in nearby Santa Clara which that community’s school district built. It rents apartments to teachers at 80% below market rate
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
‘Humanity’s remaining timeline? It looks more like five years than 50’: meet the neo-luddites warning of an AI apocalypse
Illustration: Lisa Sheehan/The Guardian From the academic who warns of a robot uprising to the workers worried for their future – is it time we started paying attention to the tech sceptics? By Tom Lamont E liezer Yudkowsky, a 44-year-old academic wearing a grey polo shirt, rocks slowly on his office chair and explains with real patience – taking things slowly for a novice like me – that every single person we know and love will soon be dead. They will be murdered by rebellious self-aware machines. “The difficulty is, people do not realise,” Yudkowsky says mildly, maybe sounding just a bit frustrated, as if irritated by a neighbour’s leaf blower or let down by the last pages of a novel. “We have a shred of a chance that humanity survives.” It’s January. I have set out to meet and talk to a small but growing band of luddites, doomsayers, disruptors and other AI-era sceptics who see only the bad in the way our spyware-steeped, infinitely doomscrolling world is tending. I want to find out why these techno-pessimists think the way they do. I want to know how they would render change. Out of all of those I speak to, Yudkowsky is the most pessimistic, the least convinced that civilisation has a hope. He is the lead researcher at a nonprofit called the Machine Intelligence Research Institute in Berkeley, California, and you could boil down the results of years of Yudkowsky’s theorising there to a couple of vowel sounds: “Oh fuuuuu–!” “If you put me to a wall,” he continues, “and forced me to put probabilities on things, I have a sense that our current remaining timeline looks more like five years than 50 years. Could be two years, could be 10.” By “remaining timeline”, Yudkowsky means: until we face the machine-wrought end of all things. Think Terminator-like apocalypse. Think Matrix hellscape. Yudkowsky was once a founding figure in the development of human-made artificial intelligences – AIs. He has come to believe that these same AIs will soon evolve from their current state of “Ooh, look at that!” smartness, assuming an advanced, God-level super-intelligence, too fast and too ambitious for humans to contain or curtail. Don’t imagine a human-made brain in one box, Yudkowsky advises. To grasp where things are heading, he says, try to picture “an alien civilisation that thinks a thousand times faster than us”, in lots and lots of boxes, almost too many for us to feasibly dismantle, should we even decide to. Trying to shake humanity from its complacency about this, Yudkowsky published an op-ed in Time last spring that advised shutting down the computer farms where AIs are grown and trained. In clear, crisp prose, he speculated about the possible need for airstrikes targeted on datacentres; perhaps even nuclear exchange. Was he on to something? A long way from Berkeley, in the wooded suburb of Sydenham in south London, a quieter form of resistance to technological infringement has been brewing. Nick Hilton, host of a neo-luddite podcast called The Ned Ludd Radio Hour , has invited me over for a cup of tea. We stand in his kitchen, waiting for the kettle to boil, while a beautiful, frisky greyhound called Tub chomps at our ankles. “Write down ‘beautiful’ in your notebook,” encourages Hilton, 31, who as well as running a podcast company works as a freelance journalist. He explains the history of luddism and how – centuries after the luddite protesters of an industrialising England resisted advances in the textile industry that were costing them jobs, destroying machines and being maligned, arrested, even killed in consequence – he came to sympathise with its modern reimagining. “Luddite has a variety of meanings now, two, maybe three definitions,” says Hilton. “Older people will sometimes say, ‘Ooh, can you help me with my phone? I’m such a luddite!’ And what they mean is, they haven’t been able to keep pace with technological change.” Then there are the people who actively reject modern devices and appliances, he continues. They may call themselves luddites (or be called that) as well. “But, in its purer historical sense, the term refers to people who are anxious about the interplay of technology and labour markets. And in that sense I would definitely describe myself as one.” View image in fullscreen ‘Technological development is shaped by money and power, and it’s generally targeted towards the interests of those in power,’ says artist Molly Crabapple. Photograph: Timothy O’Connell/The Guardian Edward Ongweso Jr, a writer and broadcaster, and Molly Crabapple, an artist, both based in New York, define themselves as luddites in this way, too. Ongweso talks to me on the phone while he runs errands around town. We first made contact over social media. We set a date via email. Now we let Google Meet handle the mechanics of a seamless transatlantic call. Neo-luddism isn’t about forgoing such innovations, Ongweso explains. Instead, it asks that each new innovation be considered for its merit, its social fairness and its potential for hidden malignity. “To me, luddism is about this idea that just because a technology exists, doesn’t mean it gets to sit around unquestioned. Just because we’ve rolled out some tech doesn’t mean we’ve rolled out some advancement. We should be continually sceptical, especially when technology is being applied in work spaces and elsewhere to order social life.” Crabapple, the artist luddite, broadly agrees. “For me, a luddite is someone who looks at technology critically and rejects aspects of it that are meant to disempower, deskill or impoverish them. Technology is not something that’s introduced by some god in heaven who has our best interests at heart. Technological development is shaped by money, it’s shaped by power, and it’s generally targeted towards the interests of those in power as opposed to the interests of those without it. That stereotypical definition of a luddite as some stupid worker who smashes machines because they’re dumb? That was concocted by bosses.” W here a techno-pessimist like Yudkowsky would have us address the biggest-picture threats conceivable (to the point at which our fingers are fumbling for the nuclear codes) neo-luddites tend to focus on ground-level concerns. Employment, especially, because this is where technology enriched by AIs seems to be causing the most pain. Lorry drivers have their mileage minutely tracked, their rest hours questioned. Desk workers may sit in front of cameras that snap pictures at random intervals, ensuring attendance and attention. You could call these workplace efficiencies. You could call them gross affronts. Guess which the luddites would argue. Labour rights go to the very historical core of this movement. Hilton called his podcast The Ned Ludd Radio Hour to honour a man who might have lived about 250 years ago or might never have lived at all. As Hilton has explained on his show, Ned Ludd is thought to have been a textile worker living in the English Midlands in the late 1770s. It’s said he smashed a few weaving machines after being flogged for his idleness on the job. Something about the smashing might have resonated with his peers. As Hilton has explained: “Within a few decades, the veracity of Ludd’s identity would be lost for ever, but the name would live on. The luddites became an organised band of frame-breakers in the 1810s. They fought the Industrial Revolution… and they lost. They lost big time. In fact they lost so badly that the reality of their name became a victim of [obfuscation].” The history of the luddite rebellion is taught in British schools – but confusedly, in a way that allowed for at least some of us, me included, to come away with an idea that to be a luddite is to be naive or else fearful and monk-ish. As Hilton walks me through from his kitchen to his lounge, a room busy with the interconnected equipment he uses to make his podcasts, he feels the need to apologise. By at least one definition of the word, “I live a very not-luddite life,” Hilton says, gesturing helplessly at open laptop, wireless earbuds, towering mic. “My work is tech-based. I can’t avoid it. I don’t claim to be some person living in the woods. But I am anxious. I feel things fraying.” View image in fullscreen ‘My work is tech-based. I can’t avoid it. But I am anxious. I feel things fraying,’ says Nick Hilton, whose podcast is called The Ned Ludd Radio Hour. Photograph: Mark Chilvers/The Guardian It is this premonition of a fraying that has brought others to a modern version of luddism. An academic called Jathan Sadowski was one of the first to knit together anxieties about our quickening tech revolution with the anxieties of those weavers who took a stand against the infringements of an earlier machine age. “Luddism is founded on a politics of refusal, which in reality just means having the right and ability to say no to things that directly impact upon your life,” Sadowski tells me when we speak. “This should not be treated as an extreme stance, and yet in a culture that fetishises technology for its own sake, saying no to technology is unthinkable.” At least, that was the case until 2023 – a year in which ChatGPT (developed by a company called OpenAI), Bard (developed by Google) and other user-friendly AIs were embraced by the world. At the same time, image generators such as Dall-E and Midjourney wowed people with their simulacrum photos and graphic art. “They won’t be replacing the prime minister with ChatGPT or the governor of the Bank of England with Bard,” Hilton has said on his podcast. “They won’t be swapping out Christopher Nolan for Dall-E or Martin Scorsese for Midjourney, but fat will be cut from the great labour steak.” In January 2023, a display of AI-generated landscapes, projected on to the wall of a gallery in Vermont, was vandalised with the words “AI IS THEFT”. Creative professionals were starting to feel exploited. Masses of uncredited, unpaid-for human work was being harvested from the internet and repurposed by clever generative AIs. In spring 2023, Crabapple organised an open letter that called for restrictions on this “vampirical” practice. There were more open letters including one that called for a six-month pause on the training of the most powerful AI systems. There were instances of direct action, some serious, some tongue-in-cheek or halfway between. In Los Angeles, opponents of those omnipresent Ring camera doorbells distributed “Anti Ring” stickers to be gummed over the lenses of the devices. A group of San Franciscans calling themselves Safe Street Rebel started seizing traffic cones and placing them on the bonnets of the city’s self-driving cars, a quick way of confusing the cars’ sensors and rendering them inoperable. Brian Merchant, a writer who last year published Blood in the Machine, a history of luddism, appeared at an event with Safe Street Rebel in November 2023. In front of cheering Californians, he staged a “luddite tribunal”, smashing devices the crowd deemed superfluous. “There’s a sense that this is now in the realm of the possible, to actually reject outright parts or uses of a technology without looking foolish,” Merchant tells me. As we speak, he is preparing for another tribunal, this time at a bookshop called Page Against the Machine. T here are techno sceptic sceptics, of course, those who would think Yudkowsky a scaremonger, the modern luddites doomed to the trivia bin of history, along with their 19th-century antecedents. In 2019, the political commentator Aaron Bastani published a persuasive manifesto titled Fully Automated Luxury Communism , describing a tech- and AI-enriched near-future beyond drudgery and need, there for the taking – “if we want it”, Bastani wrote. Last year, the Tory MP Bim Afolami published an editorial in the Evening Standard that called pessimism about technology “irrational”. Afolami advised the paper’s readers in bold type: Ignore the Luddites. His boss, Rishi Sunak, recently used his position as the leader of the nation to serve as a sort of chatshow host for the tech baron Elon Musk. On stage at an AI summit in Lancaster House, London, in November, Musk described AI as the “ most disruptive force in history ”, something that will end human labour, maybe for good, maybe for ill. “You’re not selling this,” joked Sunak at one point. Why are we being sold this? In an early episode of his luddite podcast, Hilton pointed out that to do away with work would be to do away with a reason for living. “I think what we’re risking is a wide-scale loss of purpose,” Hilton says. The writer Riley Quinn broadly agrees. Quinn is part of an Anglo-American collective, TrashFuture , that produces a popular podcast of the same name. We chat after a recording session one day. They riff and tease each other, taking a gloomy but wry and funny view of these things. Watch out, says Quinn at one point, for anyone who presents tech as “synonymous with being forward-thinking and agile and efficient. It’s typically code for ‘We’re gonna find a way around labour regulations’ … I don’t think it’s unthinking backlash or King Canute fighting against the tide [to point that out].” One of his TrashFuture colleagues Nate Bethea agrees. “Opposition to tech will always be painted as irrational by people who have a direct financial interest in continuing things as they are,” he says. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Wisecracking on the brink, the TrashFuture gang have no time for the brisk dismissal of groups like the neo-luddites, but neither are they all that keen to start an assault on the world’s computer farms, delivering the pre-emptive blow to future AIs that Yudkowsky has called for in print. They enjoy themselves, the TrashFuture lot, ridiculing his op-ed. When I ask Yudkowsky about it, he says he came at the writing in a rush, working to a tight deadline. He stands by everything he wrote, except maybe the part about the nukes. “I would pick more careful phrasing now,” he says, smiling. L ately I’ve been wrestling with techno-pessimism myself. At least once a day I throw aside my phone, disgusted with my reliance on it, rebellion that might last as long as 15 minutes before I go crawling back. My kids, observing closely, have become accustomed to an idea that shopping is done by scowling at a screen, that purchases come by van, and impractically fast. I’m a freelance writer. Of course I feel the creep of my AI replacement, somewhere over my shoulder for now, but getting nearer. We boast at each other online and we seem to have stopped feeling squeamish about it. We mug for each other and we pout. I’m convinced we tell each other too much and capture too much, keeping digital evidence of more things than the average human psyche can stand to know. There are not so many secrets between lovers, friends, colleagues, rivals; some useful middle ground has shrank away and, with it, a comfortable zone of ignorance. Receipts of our deeds are time-stamped and archived. Ambiguity – lovely ambiguity – has got lost somewhere between the zeros and the ones. Maybe luddism is the answer. As far as I can make out, talking to all these people, it isn’t about refusing advancement, instead it’s an act of wondering: are we still advancing our relish of the world? How queasy or unreal or threatened do we need to feel before we stop seeing these conveniences as convenient? The author Zadie Smith has joked in the past that we gave ourselves to tech too cheaply in the first instance, all for the pleasure, really, of being a moving dot on a useful digital map. Now bosses can track their workers’ every keystroke. Telemarketing firms put out sales calls with AI-generated voices that mimic former employees who have been let go. A few weeks back, in January, the largest-ever survey of AI researchers found that 16% of them believed their work would lead to the extinction of humankind . “That’s a one-in-six chance of catastrophe,” says Alistair Stewart, a former British soldier turned master’s student. “That’s Russian-roulette odds.” I meet Stewart, who is 28, outside the London headquarters of Google’s AI division. In what I would consider a pretty strange comms effort, Google has just commissioned some outdoor art to ease public fears about the current pace of machine learning. It’s a confusing display. One of the artworks depicts a vista of lush green hills, cosy lakeside houses – and, behind all this, a vast smoking mushroom cloud. “Scientists are using AI to create more stable and efficient [nuclear] fusion reactors,” an info panel reads. Cool? It’s the stuff of dread for Stewart. He has taken part in protests against AI development, at one point unfurling a banner outside this Google building that called for a pause on the work going on inside . Not a lot of people joined him on that protest. Stewart understands. AIs, invisible and decentralised, swarming between datacentres that are spread around the world, are hard to conceptualise as possible threats, at least when compared with issues such as the climate crisis or animal welfare, the visceral effects of which can be seen and felt. “It doesn’t always keep me up at night,” Stewart says of the latent danger he perceives. “I don’t personally feel anxiety on a day-to-day basis. And that’s part of the problem. Me, with all of my resources and education – I still struggle to form an emotional connection to this problem.” Last year, he published a blogpost that pondered next steps , listing “occupation of AI offices”, “performative vandalism of AI offices” and even “sabotage of AI computing infrastructure” as possible forms of resistance. View image in fullscreen Edward Ongweso Jr believes neo-luddites need to ‘make the system scream’ as the original luddites did. Photograph: Timothy O’Connell/The Guardian Ongweso, in New York, moots the idea of computational sabotage, too. He doesn’t think this will be easy, nor likely, unless employees inside the datacentres that feed and sustain AIs begin to feel that their own jobs or freedoms are under threat. “For instance, if people became concerned about algorithms being deployed to justify lay-offs, or if they became concerned about algorithmic surveillance,” Ongweso speculates. However, as the TrashFuture gang are quick to point out, even if some of these centres are sabotaged, the information they store is fluid, multiple, surely backed-up elsewhere. “These things have become so abstract,” says Quinn, “their physical manifestations are so far from so many people.” Are we doomed? Or is there hope? Will this generation of protesters be remembered in 200 years’ time for their interventions – or will there simply be no one to do the remembering by then? The new luddites I speak to come at these questions with varying degrees of optimism or catastrophising. Crabapple, the artist who took a stand against image generators, believes it should be possible for all of us to reckon more frankly with the dirty underbelly of clean-seeming tech. Take this nice idea of the digital cloud, she says. We chat about the cloud as though it’s neutral, immutable, something benign. After all, it’s a cloud. “But there’s no fucking cloud,” says Crabapple, “there’s other people’s computers. There are vast datacentres that are sucking up water and electricity and rare-earth metals, literally boiling up the planet … For me, what luddite success would look like would be a societal shift where we ask ourselves, ‘Why are we burning our planet? Making our lives shittier? Getting rid of every last bit of our autonomy and privacy just to make a few guys rich?’ Then maybe started doing something about this legislatively.” Ongweso would start with legislation too. He’d be happy with something on a small, achievable, symbolic scale, something that prepared the way for more expansive laws in future. “Moves to pre-empt and limit the ability of AI to troll the internet and take copyrighted work, to train its model on already generated work by writers and artists – that feels possible right now, and something that could be a stairway to a series of victories.” What would the others have us do? Stewart, the soldier turned grad student, wants a moratorium on the development of AIs until we understand them better – until those Russian-roulette-like odds improve. Yudkowsky would have us freeze everything today, this instant. “You could say that nobody’s allowed to train something more powerful than GPT-4,” he suggests. “Humanity could decide not to die and it would not be that hard.” Quinn, milder, a middle-grounder, pitches the notion that we stop making ourselves so giddy and grateful about every new piece of hardware and software that’s dreamed up. “There is constantly a demand for deference,” he says, “a demand that you say the world is lovely because you can type buttons on your iPhone and get a Starbucks coffee. You’re made to feel you’re not allowed to criticise, and you must say thank you, or else the brilliant geniuses who create these things might not create any more. And won’t you be sorry then.” Sadowski concurs. “Technology is far too important to be thought of as just a grab-bag of neat gadgets, and it’s far too powerful to be left in the hands of billionaire executives and venture capitalists,” he says. “Luddites want technology – the future – to work for all of us.” Hilton, who is about to record another episode of his luddite radio hour, says: “Classical luddism was a failure. But it has obviously endured, because it continues to exert this pull. The smashed loom is an image that has stuck itself within history. Maybe it’s remembered as a symbolic gesture. Maybe it’s remembered as a gesture in anger. But it is remembered.” What might be the defining gesture of this era? Letters, legislation, vandalised Ring cameras, airstrikes? “The historical luddites tried to make the system scream,” says Ongweso. “That catalysed later change. It’s part of the new luddite project to try to figure out how to do the same.” Explore more on these topics Life, unplugged: a no-tech special Artificial intelligence (AI) Computing ChatGPT Google Activism features Share Reuse this content Illustration: Lisa Sheehan/The Guardian From the academic who warns of a robot uprising to the workers worried for their future – is it time we started paying attention to the tech sceptics? By Tom Lamont E liezer Yudkowsky, a 44-year-old academic wearing a grey polo shirt, rocks slowly on his office chair and explains with real patience – taking things slowly for a novice like me – that every single person we know and love will soon be dead. They will be murdered by rebellious self-aware machines. “The difficulty is, people do not realise,” Yudkowsky says mildly, maybe sounding just a bit frustrated, as if irritated by a neighbour’s leaf blower or let down by the last pages of a novel. “We have a shred of a chance that humanity survives.” It’s January. I have set out to meet and talk to a small but growing band of luddites, doomsayers, disruptors and other AI-era sceptics who see only the bad in the way our spyware-steeped, infinitely doomscrolling world is tending. I want to find out why these techno-pessimists think the way they do. I want to know how they would render change. Out of all of those I speak to, Yudkowsky is the most pessimistic, the least convinced that civilisation has a hope. He is the lead researcher at a nonprofit called the Machine Intelligence Research Institute in Berkeley, California, and you could boil down the results of years of Yudkowsky’s theorising there to a couple of vowel sounds: “Oh fuuuuu–!” “If you put me to a wall,” he continues, “and forced me to put probabilities on things, I have a sense that our current remaining timeline looks more like five years than 50 years. Could be two years, could be 10.” By “remaining timeline”, Yudkowsky means: until we face the machine-wrought end of all things. Think Terminator-like apocalypse. Think Matrix hellscape. Yudkowsky was once a founding figure in the development of human-made artificial intelligences – AIs. He has come to believe that these same AIs will soon evolve from their current state of “Ooh, look at that!” smartness, assuming an advanced, God-level super-intelligence, too fast and too ambitious for humans to contain or curtail. Don’t imagine a human-made brain in one box, Yudkowsky advises. To grasp where things are heading, he says, try to picture “an alien civilisation that thinks a thousand times faster than us”, in lots and lots of boxes, almost too many for us to feasibly dismantle, should we even decide to. Trying to shake humanity from its complacency about this, Yudkowsky published an op-ed in Time last spring that advised shutting down the computer farms where AIs are grown and trained. In clear, crisp prose, he speculated about the possible need for airstrikes targeted on datacentres; perhaps even nuclear exchange. Was he on to something? A long way from Berkeley, in the wooded suburb of Sydenham in south London, a quieter form of resistance to technological infringement has been brewing. Nick Hilton, host of a neo-luddite podcast called The Ned Ludd Radio Hour , has invited me over for a cup of tea. We stand in his kitchen, waiting for the kettle to boil, while a beautiful, frisky greyhound called Tub chomps at our ankles. “Write down ‘beautiful’ in your notebook,” encourages Hilton, 31, who as well as running a podcast company works as a freelance journalist. He explains the history of luddism and how – centuries after the luddite protesters of an industrialising England resisted advances in the textile industry that were costing them jobs, destroying machines and being maligned, arrested, even killed in consequence – he came to sympathise with its modern reimagining. “Luddite has a variety of meanings now, two, maybe three definitions,” says Hilton. “Older people will sometimes say, ‘Ooh, can you help me with my phone? I’m such a luddite!’ And what they mean is, they haven’t been able to keep pace with technological change.” Then there are the people who actively reject modern devices and appliances, he continues. They may call themselves luddites (or be called that) as well. “But, in its purer historical sense, the term refers to people who are anxious about the interplay of technology and labour markets. And in that sense I would definitely describe myself as one.” View image in fullscreen ‘Technological development is shaped by money and power, and it’s generally targeted towards the interests of those in power,’ says artist Molly Crabapple. Photograph: Timothy O’Connell/The Guardian Edward Ongweso Jr, a writer and broadcaster, and Molly Crabapple, an artist, both based in New York, define themselves as luddites in this way, too. Ongweso talks to me on the phone while he runs errands around town. We first made contact over social media. We set a date via email. Now we let Google Meet handle the mechanics of a seamless transatlantic call. Neo-luddism isn’t about forgoing such innovations, Ongweso explains. Instead, it asks that each new innovation be considered for its merit, its social fairness and its potential for hidden malignity. “To me, luddism is about this idea that just because a technology exists, doesn’t mean it gets to sit around unquestioned. Just because we’ve rolled out some tech doesn’t mean we’ve rolled out some advancement. We should be continually sceptical, especially when technology is being applied in work spaces and elsewhere to order social life.” Crabapple, the artist luddite, broadly agrees. “For me, a luddite is someone who looks at technology critically and rejects aspects of it that are meant to disempower, deskill or impoverish them. Technology is not something that’s introduced by some god in heaven who has our best interests at heart. Technological development is shaped by money, it’s shaped by power, and it’s generally targeted towards the interests of those in power as opposed to the interests of those without it. That stereotypical definition of a luddite as some stupid worker who smashes machines because they’re dumb? That was concocted by bosses.” W here a techno-pessimist like Yudkowsky would have us address the biggest-picture threats conceivable (to the point at which our fingers are fumbling for the nuclear codes) neo-luddites tend to focus on ground-level concerns. Employment, especially, because this is where technology enriched by AIs seems to be causing the most pain. Lorry drivers have their mileage minutely tracked, their rest hours questioned. Desk workers may sit in front of cameras that snap pictures at random intervals, ensuring attendance and attention. You could call these workplace efficiencies. You could call them gross affronts. Guess which the luddites would argue. Labour rights go to the very historical core of this movement. Hilton called his podcast The Ned Ludd Radio Hour to honour a man who might have lived about 250 years ago or might never have lived at all. As Hilton has explained on his show, Ned Ludd is thought to have been a textile worker living in the English Midlands in the late 1770s. It’s said he smashed a few weaving machines after being flogged for his idleness on the job. Something about the smashing might have resonated with his peers. As Hilton has explained: “Within a few decades, the veracity of Ludd’s identity would be lost for ever, but the name would live on. The luddites became an organised band of frame-breakers in the 1810s. They fought the Industrial Revolution… and they lost. They lost big time. In fact they lost so badly that the reality of their name became a victim of [obfuscation].” The history of the luddite rebellion is taught in British schools – but confusedly, in a way that allowed for at least some of us, me included, to come away with an idea that to be a luddite is to be naive or else fearful and monk-ish. As Hilton walks me through from his kitchen to his lounge, a room busy with the interconnected equipment he uses to make his podcasts, he feels the need to apologise. By at least one definition of the word, “I live a very not-luddite life,” Hilton says, gesturing helplessly at open laptop, wireless earbuds, towering mic. “My work is tech-based. I can’t avoid it. I don’t claim to be some person living in the woods. But I am anxious. I feel things fraying.” View image in fullscreen ‘My work is tech-based. I can’t avoid it. But I am anxious. I feel things fraying,’ says Nick Hilton, whose podcast is called The Ned Ludd Radio Hour. Photograph: Mark Chilvers/The Guardian It is this premonition of a fraying that has brought others to a modern version of luddism. An academic called Jathan Sadowski was one of the first to knit together anxieties about our quickening tech revolution with the anxieties of those weavers who took a stand against the infringements of an earlier machine age. “Luddism is founded on a politics of refusal, which in reality just means having the right and ability to say no to things that directly impact upon your life,” Sadowski tells me when we speak. “This should not be treated as an extreme stance, and yet in a culture that fetishises technology for its own sake, saying no to technology is unthinkable.” At least, that was the case until 2023 – a year in which ChatGPT (developed by a company called OpenAI), Bard (developed by Google) and other user-friendly AIs were embraced by the world. At the same time, image generators such as Dall-E and Midjourney wowed people with their simulacrum photos and graphic art. “They won’t be replacing the prime minister with ChatGPT or the governor of the Bank of England with Bard,” Hilton has said on his podcast. “They won’t be swapping out Christopher Nolan for Dall-E or Martin Scorsese for Midjourney, but fat will be cut from the great labour steak.” In January 2023, a display of AI-generated landscapes, projected on to the wall of a gallery in Vermont, was vandalised with the words “AI IS THEFT”. Creative professionals were starting to feel exploited. Masses of uncredited, unpaid-for human work was being harvested from the internet and repurposed by clever generative AIs. In spring 2023, Crabapple organised an open letter that called for restrictions on this “vampirical” practice. There were more open letters including one that called for a six-month pause on the training of the most powerful AI systems. There were instances of direct action, some serious, some tongue-in-cheek or halfway between. In Los Angeles, opponents of those omnipresent Ring camera doorbells distributed “Anti Ring” stickers to be gummed over the lenses of the devices. A group of San Franciscans calling themselves Safe Street Rebel started seizing traffic cones and placing them on the bonnets of the city’s self-driving cars, a quick way of confusing the cars’ sensors and rendering them inoperable. Brian Merchant, a writer who last year published Blood in the Machine, a history of luddism, appeared at an event with Safe Street Rebel in November 2023. In front of cheering Californians, he staged a “luddite tribunal”, smashing devices the crowd deemed superfluous. “There’s a sense that this is now in the realm of the possible, to actually reject outright parts or uses of a technology without looking foolish,” Merchant tells me. As we speak, he is preparing for another tribunal, this time at a bookshop called Page Against the Machine. T here are techno sceptic sceptics, of course, those who would think Yudkowsky a scaremonger, the modern luddites doomed to the trivia bin of history, along with their 19th-century antecedents. In 2019, the political commentator Aaron Bastani published a persuasive manifesto titled Fully Automated Luxury Communism , describing a tech- and AI-enriched near-future beyond drudgery and need, there for the taking – “if we want it”, Bastani wrote. Last year, the Tory MP Bim Afolami published an editorial in the Evening Standard that called pessimism about technology “irrational”. Afolami advised the paper’s readers in bold type: Ignore the Luddites. His boss, Rishi Sunak, recently used his position as the leader of the nation to serve as a sort of chatshow host for the tech baron Elon Musk. On stage at an AI summit in Lancaster House, London, in November, Musk described AI as the “ most disruptive force in history ”, something that will end human labour, maybe for good, maybe for ill. “You’re not selling this,” joked Sunak at one point. Why are we being sold this? In an early episode of his luddite podcast, Hilton pointed out that to do away with work would be to do away with a reason for living. “I think what we’re risking is a wide-scale loss of purpose,” Hilton says. The writer Riley Quinn broadly agrees. Quinn is part of an Anglo-American collective, TrashFuture , that produces a popular podcast of the same name. We chat after a recording session one day. They riff and tease each other, taking a gloomy but wry and funny view of these things. Watch out, says Quinn at one point, for anyone who presents tech as “synonymous with being forward-thinking and agile and efficient. It’s typically code for ‘We’re gonna find a way around labour regulations’ … I don’t think it’s unthinking backlash or King Canute fighting against the tide [to point that out].” One of his TrashFuture colleagues Nate Bethea agrees. “Opposition to tech will always be painted as irrational by people who have a direct financial interest in continuing things as they are,” he says. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Wisecracking on the brink, the TrashFuture gang have no time for the brisk dismissal of groups like the neo-luddites, but neither are they all that keen to start an assault on the world’s computer farms, delivering the pre-emptive blow to future AIs that Yudkowsky has called for in print. They enjoy themselves, the TrashFuture lot, ridiculing his op-ed. When I ask Yudkowsky about it, he says he came at the writing in a rush, working to a tight deadline. He stands by everything he wrote, except maybe the part about the nukes. “I would pick more careful phrasing now,” he says, smiling. L ately I’ve been wrestling with techno-pessimism myself. At least once a day I throw aside my phone, disgusted with my reliance on it, rebellion that might last as long as 15 minutes before I go crawling back. My kids, observing closely, have become accustomed to an idea that shopping is done by scowling at a screen, that purchases come by van, and impractically fast. I’m a freelance writer. Of course I feel the creep of my AI replacement, somewhere over my shoulder for now, but getting nearer. We boast at each other online and we seem to have stopped feeling squeamish about it. We mug for each other and we pout. I’m convinced we tell each other too much and capture too much, keeping digital evidence of more things than the average human psyche can stand to know. There are not so many secrets between lovers, friends, colleagues, rivals; some useful middle ground has shrank away and, with it, a comfortable zone of ignorance. Receipts of our deeds are time-stamped and archived. Ambiguity – lovely ambiguity – has got lost somewhere between the zeros and the ones. Maybe luddism is the answer. As far as I can make out, talking to all these people, it isn’t about refusing advancement, instead it’s an act of wondering: are we still advancing our relish of the world? How queasy or unreal or threatened do we need to feel before we stop seeing these conveniences as convenient? The author Zadie Smith has joked in the past that we gave ourselves to tech too cheaply in the first instance, all for the pleasure, really, of being a moving dot on a useful digital map. Now bosses can track their workers’ every keystroke. Telemarketing firms put out sales calls with AI-generated voices that mimic former employees who have been let go. A few weeks back, in January, the largest-ever survey of AI researchers found that 16% of them believed their work would lead to the extinction of humankind . “That’s a one-in-six chance of catastrophe,” says Alistair Stewart, a former British soldier turned master’s student. “That’s Russian-roulette odds.” I meet Stewart, who is 28, outside the London headquarters of Google’s AI division. In what I would consider a pretty strange comms effort, Google has just commissioned some outdoor art to ease public fears about the current pace of machine learning. It’s a confusing display. One of the artworks depicts a vista of lush green hills, cosy lakeside houses – and, behind all this, a vast smoking mushroom cloud. “Scientists are using AI to create more stable and efficient [nuclear] fusion reactors,” an info panel reads. Cool? It’s the stuff of dread for Stewart. He has taken part in protests against AI development, at one point unfurling a banner outside this Google building that called for a pause on the work going on inside . Not a lot of people joined him on that protest. Stewart understands. AIs, invisible and decentralised, swarming between datacentres that are spread around the world, are hard to conceptualise as possible threats, at least when compared with issues such as the climate crisis or animal welfare, the visceral effects of which can be seen and felt. “It doesn’t always keep me up at night,” Stewart says of the latent danger he perceives. “I don’t personally feel anxiety on a day-to-day basis. And that’s part of the problem. Me, with all of my resources and education – I still struggle to form an emotional connection to this problem.” Last year, he published a blogpost that pondered next steps , listing “occupation of AI offices”, “performative vandalism of AI offices” and even “sabotage of AI computing infrastructure” as possible forms of resistance. View image in fullscreen Edward Ongweso Jr believes neo-luddites need to ‘make the system scream’ as the original luddites did. Photograph: Timothy O’Connell/The Guardian Ongweso, in New York, moots the idea of computational sabotage, too. He doesn’t think this will be easy, nor likely, unless employees inside the datacentres that feed and sustain AIs begin to feel that their own jobs or freedoms are under threat. “For instance, if people became concerned about algorithms being deployed to justify lay-offs, or if they became concerned about algorithmic surveillance,” Ongweso speculates. However, as the TrashFuture gang are quick to point out, even if some of these centres are sabotaged, the information they store is fluid, multiple, surely backed-up elsewhere. “These things have become so abstract,” says Quinn, “their physical manifestations are so far from so many people.” Are we doomed? Or is there hope? Will this generation of protesters be remembered in 200 years’ time for their interventions – or will there simply be no one to do the remembering by then? The new luddites I speak to come at these questions with varying degrees of optimism or catastrophising. Crabapple, the artist who took a stand against image generators, believes it should be possible for all of us to reckon more frankly with the dirty underbelly of clean-seeming tech. Take this nice idea of the digital cloud, she says. We chat about the cloud as though it’s neutral, immutable, something benign. After all, it’s a cloud. “But there’s no fucking cloud,” says Crabapple, “there’s other people’s computers. There are vast datacentres that are sucking up water and electricity and rare-earth metals, literally boiling up the planet … For me, what luddite success would look like would be a societal shift where we ask ourselves, ‘Why are we burning our planet? Making our lives shittier? Getting rid of every last bit of our autonomy and privacy just to make a few guys rich?’ Then maybe started doing something about this legislatively.” Ongweso would start with legislation too. He’d be happy with something on a small, achievable, symbolic scale, something that prepared the way for more expansive laws in future. “Moves to pre-empt and limit the ability of AI to troll the internet and take copyrighted work, to train its model on already generated work by writers and artists – that feels possible right now, and something that could be a stairway to a series of victories.” What would the others have us do? Stewart, the soldier turned grad student, wants a moratorium on the development of AIs until we understand them better – until those Russian-roulette-like odds improve. Yudkowsky would have us freeze everything today, this instant. “You could say that nobody’s allowed to train something more powerful than GPT-4,” he suggests. “Humanity could decide not to die and it would not be that hard.” Quinn, milder, a middle-grounder, pitches the notion that we stop making ourselves so giddy and grateful about every new piece of hardware and software that’s dreamed up. “There is constantly a demand for deference,” he says, “a demand that you say the world is lovely because you can type buttons on your iPhone and get a Starbucks coffee. You’re made to feel you’re not allowed to criticise, and you must say thank you, or else the brilliant geniuses who create these things might not create any more. And won’t you be sorry then.” Sadowski concurs. “Technology is far too important to be thought of as just a grab-bag of neat gadgets, and it’s far too powerful to be left in the hands of billionaire executives and venture capitalists,” he says. “Luddites want technology – the future – to work for all of us.” Hilton, who is about to record another episode of his luddite radio hour, says: “Classical luddism was a failure. But it has obviously endured, because it continues to exert this pull. The smashed loom is an image that has stuck itself within history. Maybe it’s remembered as a symbolic gesture. Maybe it’s remembered as a gesture in anger. But it is remembered.” What might be the defining gesture of this era? Letters, legislation, vandalised Ring cameras, airstrikes? “The historical luddites tried to make the system scream,” says Ongweso. “That catalysed later change. It’s part of the new luddite project to try to figure out how to do the same.” Explore more on these topics Life, unplugged: a no-tech special Artificial intelligence (AI) Computing ChatGPT Google Activism features Share Reuse this content Illustration: Lisa Sheehan/The Guardian From the academic who warns of a robot uprising to the workers worried for their future – is it time we started paying attention to the tech sceptics? From the academic who warns of a robot uprising to the workers worried for their future – is it time we started paying attention to the tech sceptics? From the academic who warns of a robot uprising to the workers worried for their future – is it time we started paying attention to the tech sceptics? E liezer Yudkowsky, a 44-year-old academic wearing a grey polo shirt, rocks slowly on his office chair and explains with real patience – taking things slowly for a novice like me – that every single person we know and love will soon be dead. They will be murdered by rebellious self-aware machines. “The difficulty is, people do not realise,” Yudkowsky says mildly, maybe sounding just a bit frustrated, as if irritated by a neighbour’s leaf blower or let down by the last pages of a novel. “We have a shred of a chance that humanity survives.” It’s January. I have set out to meet and talk to a small but growing band of luddites, doomsayers, disruptors and other AI-era sceptics who see only the bad in the way our spyware-steeped, infinitely doomscrolling world is tending. I want to find out why these techno-pessimists think the way they do. I want to know how they would render change. Out of all of those I speak to, Yudkowsky is the most pessimistic, the least convinced that civilisation has a hope. He is the lead researcher at a nonprofit called the Machine Intelligence Research Institute in Berkeley, California, and you could boil down the results of years of Yudkowsky’s theorising there to a couple of vowel sounds: “Oh fuuuuu–!” “If you put me to a wall,” he continues, “and forced me to put probabilities on things, I have a sense that our current remaining timeline looks more like five years than 50 years. Could be two years, could be 10.” By “remaining timeline”, Yudkowsky means: until we face the machine-wrought end of all things. Think Terminator-like apocalypse. Think Matrix hellscape. Yudkowsky was once a founding figure in the development of human-made artificial intelligences – AIs. He has come to believe that these same AIs will soon evolve from their current state of “Ooh, look at that!” smartness, assuming an advanced, God-level super-intelligence, too fast and too ambitious for humans to contain or curtail. Don’t imagine a human-made brain in one box, Yudkowsky advises. To grasp where things are heading, he says, try to picture “an alien civilisation that thinks a thousand times faster than us”, in lots and lots of boxes, almost too many for us to feasibly dismantle, should we even decide to. Trying to shake humanity from its complacency about this, Yudkowsky published an op-ed in Time last spring that advised shutting down the computer farms where AIs are grown and trained. In clear, crisp prose, he speculated about the possible need for airstrikes targeted on datacentres; perhaps even nuclear exchange. Was he on to something? A long way from Berkeley, in the wooded suburb of Sydenham in south London, a quieter form of resistance to technological infringement has been brewing. Nick Hilton, host of a neo-luddite podcast called The Ned Ludd Radio Hour , has invited me over for a cup of tea. We stand in his kitchen, waiting for the kettle to boil, while a beautiful, frisky greyhound called Tub chomps at our ankles. “Write down ‘beautiful’ in your notebook,” encourages Hilton, 31, who as well as running a podcast company works as a freelance journalist. He explains the history of luddism and how – centuries after the luddite protesters of an industrialising England resisted advances in the textile industry that were costing them jobs, destroying machines and being maligned, arrested, even killed in consequence – he came to sympathise with its modern reimagining. “Luddite has a variety of meanings now, two, maybe three definitions,” says Hilton. “Older people will sometimes say, ‘Ooh, can you help me with my phone? I’m such a luddite!’ And what they mean is, they haven’t been able to keep pace with technological change.” Then there are the people who actively reject modern devices and appliances, he continues. They may call themselves luddites (or be called that) as well. “But, in its purer historical sense, the term refers to people who are anxious about the interplay of technology and labour markets. And in that sense I would definitely describe myself as one.” View image in fullscreen ‘Technological development is shaped by money and power, and it’s generally target
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Labour seeking SNP deal to avoid new Gaza ceasefire rebellion
Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Labour seeking SNP deal to avoid new Gaza ceasefire rebellion This article is more than 1 year old Party hopes for compromise wording after previous SNP motion saw 56 MPs defy Keir Starmer Labour is hoping to defuse a fresh crisis over Keir Starmer’s cautious stance on Gaza by rewording a Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. With the support of Scotland’s first minister, Humza Yousaf , the SNP will table a motion to be debated in the Commons on Wednesday, which intends to challenge Starmer by calling for an immediate end to the violence. Labour is desperate to avoid a repeat of last November’s sizeable rebellion by MPs over Starmer’s stance , which saw 56 Labour MPs back a similar SNP motion and three shadow spokespeople resign. In an attempt to crank up the pressure on Starmer, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, published an open letter to Labour backbenchers urging them to back their fresh motion. “For more than four months, the UK has followed the strategy of equivocation supported by Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer,” Flynn’s letter stated. “The devastation shows it hasn’t worked. The time for equivocation is over.” He released it as Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, who has previously been highly critical of Starmer’s early caution , endorsed a motion at the party’s annual conference in Glasgow on Saturday that explicitly called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides. Speaking to delegates on Friday, Sarwar said he believed the “fighting must stop”, adding: “That means an immediate ceasefire with an end to rocket fire going in to, and coming out of, Gaza right now. “It means the immediate release of hostages; immediate access to humanitarian aid [and] crucially, immediate efforts by world leaders to forge a path to an enduring peace and a two-state solution.” Starmer has repeatedly avoided using the word “immediate” and has instead called for a “sustainable” ceasefire, perhaps to avoid the risk that Hamas and its Islamist allies in Gaza will fail to adhere to it, leaving Labour to appear naive. Yet he has edged closer to Sarwar’s position recently. In an interview with Sky on the sidelines of the Munich security conference on Saturday, Starmer confirmed his aides were studying the SNP motion to see if a deal could be struck. “We’ll have to look at the precise wording. But I’m very clear that we all want a ceasefire. The question therefore is how do we get there?” With pro-Palestinian campaigners protesting outside the conference venue, Sarwar told reporters in Glasgow there was little difference between Labour and the SNP, or between him and Starmer, over the need for an urgent end to the violence. He said Labour whips and Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, wanted talks with Flynn in an effort to draft a motion Labour could endorse. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “It looks like a pretty decent motion,” Sarwar said. “If we can send a unified message from the UK parliament then we should take that opportunity and I hope people will engage in good faith in trying to find that unified position. “In the end, that is more important than two political parties having a go at each other when in actual fact what matters is the people living in Israel and Palestine who are fearing for their lives.” Yousaf said the onus was on Labour to make its position on Gaza clear. “The real proof of the pudding will be what UK Labour chooses to do when the SNP brings a vote for a ceasefire once again to the House of Commons,” he said. One Scottish Labour councillor was cheered by delegates when he said the conference “demanded” that Scottish Labour’s two MPs back the ceasefire motion next week. Pauline McNeill, one of Sarwar’s allies and his justice spokesperson at Holyrood, said fighting for an independent Palestinian state was “the moral question of our time. Labour must not only call for the two-state solution, we must fight for the two-state solution.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Labour The Observer Keir Starmer Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war Scottish politics Scotland news Share Reuse this content Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Labour seeking SNP deal to avoid new Gaza ceasefire rebellion This article is more than 1 year old Party hopes for compromise wording after previous SNP motion saw 56 MPs defy Keir Starmer Labour is hoping to defuse a fresh crisis over Keir Starmer’s cautious stance on Gaza by rewording a Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. With the support of Scotland’s first minister, Humza Yousaf , the SNP will table a motion to be debated in the Commons on Wednesday, which intends to challenge Starmer by calling for an immediate end to the violence. Labour is desperate to avoid a repeat of last November’s sizeable rebellion by MPs over Starmer’s stance , which saw 56 Labour MPs back a similar SNP motion and three shadow spokespeople resign. In an attempt to crank up the pressure on Starmer, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, published an open letter to Labour backbenchers urging them to back their fresh motion. “For more than four months, the UK has followed the strategy of equivocation supported by Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer,” Flynn’s letter stated. “The devastation shows it hasn’t worked. The time for equivocation is over.” He released it as Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, who has previously been highly critical of Starmer’s early caution , endorsed a motion at the party’s annual conference in Glasgow on Saturday that explicitly called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides. Speaking to delegates on Friday, Sarwar said he believed the “fighting must stop”, adding: “That means an immediate ceasefire with an end to rocket fire going in to, and coming out of, Gaza right now. “It means the immediate release of hostages; immediate access to humanitarian aid [and] crucially, immediate efforts by world leaders to forge a path to an enduring peace and a two-state solution.” Starmer has repeatedly avoided using the word “immediate” and has instead called for a “sustainable” ceasefire, perhaps to avoid the risk that Hamas and its Islamist allies in Gaza will fail to adhere to it, leaving Labour to appear naive. Yet he has edged closer to Sarwar’s position recently. In an interview with Sky on the sidelines of the Munich security conference on Saturday, Starmer confirmed his aides were studying the SNP motion to see if a deal could be struck. “We’ll have to look at the precise wording. But I’m very clear that we all want a ceasefire. The question therefore is how do we get there?” With pro-Palestinian campaigners protesting outside the conference venue, Sarwar told reporters in Glasgow there was little difference between Labour and the SNP, or between him and Starmer, over the need for an urgent end to the violence. He said Labour whips and Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, wanted talks with Flynn in an effort to draft a motion Labour could endorse. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “It looks like a pretty decent motion,” Sarwar said. “If we can send a unified message from the UK parliament then we should take that opportunity and I hope people will engage in good faith in trying to find that unified position. “In the end, that is more important than two political parties having a go at each other when in actual fact what matters is the people living in Israel and Palestine who are fearing for their lives.” Yousaf said the onus was on Labour to make its position on Gaza clear. “The real proof of the pudding will be what UK Labour chooses to do when the SNP brings a vote for a ceasefire once again to the House of Commons,” he said. One Scottish Labour councillor was cheered by delegates when he said the conference “demanded” that Scottish Labour’s two MPs back the ceasefire motion next week. Pauline McNeill, one of Sarwar’s allies and his justice spokesperson at Holyrood, said fighting for an independent Palestinian state was “the moral question of our time. Labour must not only call for the two-state solution, we must fight for the two-state solution.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Labour The Observer Keir Starmer Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war Scottish politics Scotland news Share Reuse this content Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images Demonstrators in George Square, Glasgow call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Labour seeking SNP deal to avoid new Gaza ceasefire rebellion This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Labour seeking SNP deal to avoid new Gaza ceasefire rebellion This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Labour seeking SNP deal to avoid new Gaza ceasefire rebellion This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Party hopes for compromise wording after previous SNP motion saw 56 MPs defy Keir Starmer Party hopes for compromise wording after previous SNP motion saw 56 MPs defy Keir Starmer Party hopes for compromise wording after previous SNP motion saw 56 MPs defy Keir Starmer Labour is hoping to defuse a fresh crisis over Keir Starmer’s cautious stance on Gaza by rewording a Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. With the support of Scotland’s first minister, Humza Yousaf , the SNP will table a motion to be debated in the Commons on Wednesday, which intends to challenge Starmer by calling for an immediate end to the violence. Labour is desperate to avoid a repeat of last November’s sizeable rebellion by MPs over Starmer’s stance , which saw 56 Labour MPs back a similar SNP motion and three shadow spokespeople resign. In an attempt to crank up the pressure on Starmer, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, published an open letter to Labour backbenchers urging them to back their fresh motion. “For more than four months, the UK has followed the strategy of equivocation supported by Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer,” Flynn’s letter stated. “The devastation shows it hasn’t worked. The time for equivocation is over.” He released it as Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, who has previously been highly critical of Starmer’s early caution , endorsed a motion at the party’s annual conference in Glasgow on Saturday that explicitly called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides. Speaking to delegates on Friday, Sarwar said he believed the “fighting must stop”, adding: “That means an immediate ceasefire with an end to rocket fire going in to, and coming out of, Gaza right now. “It means the immediate release of hostages; immediate access to humanitarian aid [and] crucially, immediate efforts by world leaders to forge a path to an enduring peace and a two-state solution.” Starmer has repeatedly avoided using the word “immediate” and has instead called for a “sustainable” ceasefire, perhaps to avoid the risk that Hamas and its Islamist allies in Gaza will fail to adhere to it, leaving Labour to appear naive. Yet he has edged closer to Sarwar’s position recently. In an interview with Sky on the sidelines of the Munich security conference on Saturday, Starmer confirmed his aides were studying the SNP motion to see if a deal could be struck. “We’ll have to look at the precise wording. But I’m very clear that we all want a ceasefire. The question therefore is how do we get there?” With pro-Palestinian campaigners protesting outside the conference venue, Sarwar told reporters in Glasgow there was little difference between Labour and the SNP, or between him and Starmer, over the need for an urgent end to the violence. He said Labour whips and Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, wanted talks with Flynn in an effort to draft a motion Labour could endorse. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “It looks like a pretty decent motion,” Sarwar said. “If we can send a unified message from the UK parliament then we should take that opportunity and I hope people will engage in good faith in trying to find that unified position. “In the end, that is more important than two political parties having a go at each other when in actual fact what matters is the people living in Israel and Palestine who are fearing for their lives.” Yousaf said the onus was on Labour to make its position on Gaza clear. “The real proof of the pudding will be what UK Labour chooses to do when the SNP brings a vote for a ceasefire once again to the House of Commons,” he said. One Scottish Labour councillor was cheered by delegates when he said the conference “demanded” that Scottish Labour’s two MPs back the ceasefire motion next week. Pauline McNeill, one of Sarwar’s allies and his justice spokesperson at Holyrood, said fighting for an independent Palestinian state was “the moral question of our time. Labour must not only call for the two-state solution, we must fight for the two-state solution.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Labour The Observer Keir Starmer Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war Scottish politics Scotland news Share Reuse this content Labour is hoping to defuse a fresh crisis over Keir Starmer’s cautious stance on Gaza by rewording a Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. With the support of Scotland’s first minister, Humza Yousaf , the SNP will table a motion to be debated in the Commons on Wednesday, which intends to challenge Starmer by calling for an immediate end to the violence. Labour is desperate to avoid a repeat of last November’s sizeable rebellion by MPs over Starmer’s stance , which saw 56 Labour MPs back a similar SNP motion and three shadow spokespeople resign. In an attempt to crank up the pressure on Starmer, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, published an open letter to Labour backbenchers urging them to back their fresh motion. “For more than four months, the UK has followed the strategy of equivocation supported by Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer,” Flynn’s letter stated. “The devastation shows it hasn’t worked. The time for equivocation is over.” He released it as Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, who has previously been highly critical of Starmer’s early caution , endorsed a motion at the party’s annual conference in Glasgow on Saturday that explicitly called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides. Speaking to delegates on Friday, Sarwar said he believed the “fighting must stop”, adding: “That means an immediate ceasefire with an end to rocket fire going in to, and coming out of, Gaza right now. “It means the immediate release of hostages; immediate access to humanitarian aid [and] crucially, immediate efforts by world leaders to forge a path to an enduring peace and a two-state solution.” Starmer has repeatedly avoided using the word “immediate” and has instead called for a “sustainable” ceasefire, perhaps to avoid the risk that Hamas and its Islamist allies in Gaza will fail to adhere to it, leaving Labour to appear naive. Yet he has edged closer to Sarwar’s position recently. In an interview with Sky on the sidelines of the Munich security conference on Saturday, Starmer confirmed his aides were studying the SNP motion to see if a deal could be struck. “We’ll have to look at the precise wording. But I’m very clear that we all want a ceasefire. The question therefore is how do we get there?” With pro-Palestinian campaigners protesting outside the conference venue, Sarwar told reporters in Glasgow there was little difference between Labour and the SNP, or between him and Starmer, over the need for an urgent end to the violence. He said Labour whips and Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, wanted talks with Flynn in an effort to draft a motion Labour could endorse. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “It looks like a pretty decent motion,” Sarwar said. “If we can send a unified message from the UK parliament then we should take that opportunity and I hope people will engage in good faith in trying to find that unified position. “In the end, that is more important than two political parties having a go at each other when in actual fact what matters is the people living in Israel and Palestine who are fearing for their lives.” Yousaf said the onus was on Labour to make its position on Gaza clear. “The real proof of the pudding will be what UK Labour chooses to do when the SNP brings a vote for a ceasefire once again to the House of Commons,” he said. One Scottish Labour councillor was cheered by delegates when he said the conference “demanded” that Scottish Labour’s two MPs back the ceasefire motion next week. Pauline McNeill, one of Sarwar’s allies and his justice spokesperson at Holyrood, said fighting for an independent Palestinian state was “the moral question of our time. Labour must not only call for the two-state solution, we must fight for the two-state solution.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Labour The Observer Keir Starmer Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war Scottish politics Scotland news Share Reuse this content Labour is hoping to defuse a fresh crisis over Keir Starmer’s cautious stance on Gaza by rewording a Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. With the support of Scotland’s first minister, Humza Yousaf , the SNP will table a motion to be debated in the Commons on Wednesday, which intends to challenge Starmer by calling for an immediate end to the violence. Labour is desperate to avoid a repeat of last November’s sizeable rebellion by MPs over Starmer’s stance , which saw 56 Labour MPs back a similar SNP motion and three shadow spokespeople resign. In an attempt to crank up the pressure on Starmer, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, published an open letter to Labour backbenchers urging them to back their fresh motion. “For more than four months, the UK has followed the strategy of equivocation supported by Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer,” Flynn’s letter stated. “The devastation shows it hasn’t worked. The time for equivocation is over.” He released it as Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, who has previously been highly critical of Starmer’s early caution , endorsed a motion at the party’s annual conference in Glasgow on Saturday that explicitly called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides. Speaking to delegates on Friday, Sarwar said he believed the “fighting must stop”, adding: “That means an immediate ceasefire with an end to rocket fire going in to, and coming out of, Gaza right now. “It means the immediate release of hostages; immediate access to humanitarian aid [and] crucially, immediate efforts by world leaders to forge a path to an enduring peace and a two-state solution.” Starmer has repeatedly avoided using the word “immediate” and has instead called for a “sustainable” ceasefire, perhaps to avoid the risk that Hamas and its Islamist allies in Gaza will fail to adhere to it, leaving Labour to appear naive. Yet he has edged closer to Sarwar’s position recently. In an interview with Sky on the sidelines of the Munich security conference on Saturday, Starmer confirmed his aides were studying the SNP motion to see if a deal could be struck. “We’ll have to look at the precise wording. But I’m very clear that we all want a ceasefire. The question therefore is how do we get there?” With pro-Palestinian campaigners protesting outside the conference venue, Sarwar told reporters in Glasgow there was little difference between Labour and the SNP, or between him and Starmer, over the need for an urgent end to the violence. He said Labour whips and Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, wanted talks with Flynn in an effort to draft a motion Labour could endorse. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “It looks like a pretty decent motion,” Sarwar said. “If we can send a unified message from the UK parliament then we should take that opportunity and I hope people will engage in good faith in trying to find that unified position. “In the end, that is more important than two political parties having a go at each other when in actual fact what matters is the people living in Israel and Palestine who are fearing for their lives.” Yousaf said the onus was on Labour to make its position on Gaza clear. “The real proof of the pudding will be what UK Labour chooses to do when the SNP brings a vote for a ceasefire once again to the House of Commons,” he said. One Scottish Labour councillor was cheered by delegates when he said the conference “demanded” that Scottish Labour’s two MPs back the ceasefire motion next week. Pauline McNeill, one of Sarwar’s allies and his justice spokesperson at Holyrood, said fighting for an independent Palestinian state was “the moral question of our time. Labour must not only call for the two-state solution, we must fight for the two-state solution.” Labour is hoping to defuse a fresh crisis over Keir Starmer’s cautious stance on Gaza by rewording a Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. With the support of Scotland’s first minister, Humza Yousaf , the SNP will table a motion to be debated in the Commons on Wednesday, which intends to challenge Starmer by calling for an immediate end to the violence. Labour is desperate to avoid a repeat of last November’s sizeable rebellion by MPs over Starmer’s stance , which saw 56 Labour MPs back a similar SNP motion and three shadow spokespeople resign. In an attempt to crank up the pressure on Starmer, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, published an open letter to Labour backbenchers urging them to back their fresh motion. “For more than four months, the UK has followed the strategy of equivocation supported by Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer,” Flynn’s letter stated. “The devastation shows it hasn’t worked. The time for equivocation is over.” He released it as Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, who has previously been highly critical of Starmer’s early caution , endorsed a motion at the party’s annual conference in Glasgow on Saturday that explicitly called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides. Speaking to delegates on Friday, Sarwar said he believed the “fighting must stop”, adding: “That means an immediate ceasefire with an end to rocket fire going in to, and coming out of, Gaza right now. “It means the immediate release of hostages; immediate access to humanitarian aid [and] crucially, immediate efforts by world leaders to forge a path to an enduring peace and a two-state solution.” Starmer has repeatedly avoided using the word “immediate” and has instead called for a “sustainable” ceasefire, perhaps to avoid the risk that Hamas and its Islamist allies in Gaza will fail to adhere to it, leaving Labour to appear naive. Yet he has edged closer to Sarwar’s position recently. In an interview with Sky on the sidelines of the Munich security conference on Saturday, Starmer confirmed his aides were studying the SNP motion to see if a deal could be struck. “We’ll have to look at the precise wording. But I’m very clear that we all want a ceasefire. The question therefore is how do we get there?” With pro-Palestinian campaigners protesting outside the conference venue, Sarwar told reporters in Glasgow there was little difference between Labour and the SNP, or between him and Starmer, over the need for an urgent end to the violence. He said Labour whips and Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, wanted talks with Flynn in an effort to draft a motion Labour could endorse. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “It looks like a pretty decent motion,” Sarwar said. “If we can send a unified message from the UK parliament then we should take that opportunity and I hope people will engage in good faith in trying to find that unified position. “In the end, that is more important than two political parties having a go at each other when in actual fact what matters is the people living in Israel and Palestine who are fearing for their lives.” Yousaf said the onus was on Labour to make its position on Gaza clear. “The real proof of the pudding will be what UK Labour chooses to do when the SNP brings a vote for a ceasefire once again to the House of Commons,” he said. One Scottish Labour councillor was cheered by delegates when he said the conference “demanded” that Scottish Labour’s two MPs back the ceasefire motion next week. Pauline McNeill, one of Sarwar’s allies and his justice spokesperson at Holyrood, said fighting for an independent Palestinian state was “the moral question of our time. Labour must not only call for the two-state solution, we must fight for the two-state solution.” Labour is hoping to defuse a fresh crisis over Keir Starmer’s cautious stance on Gaza by rewording a Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. With the support of Scotland’s first minister, Humza Yousaf , the SNP will table a motion to be debated in the Commons on Wednesday, which intends to challenge Starmer by calling for an immediate end to the violence. Labour is desperate to avoid a repeat of last November’s sizeable rebellion by MPs over Starmer’s stance , which saw 56 Labour MPs back a similar SNP motion and three shadow spokespeople resign. In an attempt to crank up the pressure on Starmer, Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, published an open letter to Labour backbenchers urging them to back their fresh motion. “For more than four months, the UK has followed the strategy of equivocation supported by Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer,” Flynn’s letter stated. “The devastation shows it hasn’t worked. The time for equivocation is over.” He released it as Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, who has previously been highly critical of Starmer’s early caution , endorsed a motion at the party’s annual conference in Glasgow on Saturday that explicitly called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides. Speaking to delegates on Friday, Sarwar said he believed the “fighting must stop”, adding: “That means an immediate ceasefire with an end to rocket fire going in to, and coming out of, Gaza right now. “It means the immediate release of hostages; immediate access to humanitarian aid [and] crucially, immediate efforts by world leaders to forge a path to an enduring peace and a two-state solution.” Starmer has repeatedly avoided using the word “immediate” and has instead called for a “sustainable” ceasefire, perhaps to avoid the risk that Hamas and its Islamist allies in Gaza will fail to adhere to it, leaving Labour to appear naive. Yet he has edged closer to Sarwar’s position recently. In an interview with Sky on the sidelines of the Munich security conference on Saturday, Starmer confirmed his aides were studying the SNP motion to see if a deal could be struck. “We’ll have to look at the precise wording. But I’m very clear that we all want a ceasefire. The question therefore is how do we get there?” With pro-Palestinian campaigners protesting outside the conference venue, Sarwar told reporters in Glasgow there was little difference between Labour and the SNP, or between him and Starmer, over the need for an urgent end to the violence. He said Labour whips and Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, wanted talks with Flynn in an effort to draft a motion Labour could endorse. “It looks like a pretty decent motion,” Sarwar said. “If we can send a unified message from the UK parliament then we should take that opportunity and I hope people will engage in good faith in trying to find that unified position. “In the end, that is more important than two political parties having a go at each other when in actual fact what matters is the people living in Israel and Palestine who are fearing for their lives.” Yousaf said the onus was on Labour to make its position on Gaza clear. “The real proof of the pudding will be what UK Labour chooses to do when the SNP brings a vote for a ceasefire once again to the House of Commons,” he said. One Scottish Labour councillor was cheered by delegates when he said the conference “demanded” that Scottish Labour’s two MPs back the ceasefire motion next week. Pauline McNeill, one of Sarwar’s allies and his justice spokesperson at Holyrood, said fighting for an independent Palestinian state was “the moral question of our time. Labour must not only call for the two-state solution, we must fight for the two-state solution.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Labour The Observer Keir Starmer Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war Scottish politics Scotland news Share Reuse this content Labour The Observer Keir Starmer Humza Yousaf Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war Scottish politics Scotland news |
Cleaner sacked for eating leftover tuna sandwich takes legal action against City law firm
Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union This article is more than 1 year old Cleaner sacked for eating leftover tuna sandwich takes legal action against City law firm This article is more than 1 year old Gabriela Rodriguez cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years A cleaner is taking legal action against a top City law firm for indirect race discrimination after being fired for eating a leftover tuna sandwich from a discarded platter. Gabriela Rodriguez from Ecuador cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years. United Voices of the World union (UVW), which supports migrant workers, claims she was sacked just before Christmas 2023 after contractor Total Clean received a complaint from Devonshires Solicitors that leftover sandwiches were not being returned. The union confirmed Rodriguez ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. The claim was first reported by legal affairs website RollOnFriday . She was then let go for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse”. In an attempt to get Rodriguez reinstated, dozens of UVW members – including cleaners, legal sector workers and hospitality workers – protested outside Devonshires’ offices on Valentine’s Day bearing 100 cans of tuna, 300 hand-wrapped sandwiches, several helium heart-shaped balloons, and love letters for Rodriguez. Petros Elia, the general secretary of UVW, said the union was “mission-bound as a trade union which represents large numbers of cleaners” – most of whom are migrant workers. Elia added: “Cleaners are routinely dismissed on trivial and, we argue, discriminatory grounds like this every day around the country. Many describe feeling treated ‘like the dirt they clean’ and Gabriela is one of them. We will raise our voices and unite to fight any employer – even big powerful companies like Devonshires Solicitors. “And just because we clean their dirt, does not mean they can treat us like dirt. We demand respect, dignity and equality, regardless of the language we speak, our country of origin, or the colour of our skin. “We are taking both Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal. For Total Clean, the claims are for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination. For Devonshires Solicitors the claims are for direct and/or indirect race discrimination.” UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was an act of discrimination alleging if she was not a Latin American with limited English, Devonshires would not have complained about her, which led to her dismissal. A Total Clean spokesperson told the Guardian: “While we would not typically comment on personnel issues, we would like to address the misleading and inaccurate information that is being alleged by our ex-employee. It is important to us to maintain the integrity of our workforce and service by ensuring we deal appropriately with any actions that undermine the hard work and reputation of our incredible team who conduct themselves impeccably. Trust and honesty is of paramount importance. “All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.” A spokesperson for Devonshires Solicitors said: “Devonshires did not make a formal complaint against Gabriela and expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever. “This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object – as we never have done – to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.” Explore more on these topics Law Trade unions London news Share Reuse this content Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union This article is more than 1 year old Cleaner sacked for eating leftover tuna sandwich takes legal action against City law firm This article is more than 1 year old Gabriela Rodriguez cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years A cleaner is taking legal action against a top City law firm for indirect race discrimination after being fired for eating a leftover tuna sandwich from a discarded platter. Gabriela Rodriguez from Ecuador cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years. United Voices of the World union (UVW), which supports migrant workers, claims she was sacked just before Christmas 2023 after contractor Total Clean received a complaint from Devonshires Solicitors that leftover sandwiches were not being returned. The union confirmed Rodriguez ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. The claim was first reported by legal affairs website RollOnFriday . She was then let go for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse”. In an attempt to get Rodriguez reinstated, dozens of UVW members – including cleaners, legal sector workers and hospitality workers – protested outside Devonshires’ offices on Valentine’s Day bearing 100 cans of tuna, 300 hand-wrapped sandwiches, several helium heart-shaped balloons, and love letters for Rodriguez. Petros Elia, the general secretary of UVW, said the union was “mission-bound as a trade union which represents large numbers of cleaners” – most of whom are migrant workers. Elia added: “Cleaners are routinely dismissed on trivial and, we argue, discriminatory grounds like this every day around the country. Many describe feeling treated ‘like the dirt they clean’ and Gabriela is one of them. We will raise our voices and unite to fight any employer – even big powerful companies like Devonshires Solicitors. “And just because we clean their dirt, does not mean they can treat us like dirt. We demand respect, dignity and equality, regardless of the language we speak, our country of origin, or the colour of our skin. “We are taking both Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal. For Total Clean, the claims are for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination. For Devonshires Solicitors the claims are for direct and/or indirect race discrimination.” UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was an act of discrimination alleging if she was not a Latin American with limited English, Devonshires would not have complained about her, which led to her dismissal. A Total Clean spokesperson told the Guardian: “While we would not typically comment on personnel issues, we would like to address the misleading and inaccurate information that is being alleged by our ex-employee. It is important to us to maintain the integrity of our workforce and service by ensuring we deal appropriately with any actions that undermine the hard work and reputation of our incredible team who conduct themselves impeccably. Trust and honesty is of paramount importance. “All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.” A spokesperson for Devonshires Solicitors said: “Devonshires did not make a formal complaint against Gabriela and expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever. “This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object – as we never have done – to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.” Explore more on these topics Law Trade unions London news Share Reuse this content Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union Gabriela Rodriguez. The UVW union confirmed she ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. Photograph: United Voices of the World union This article is more than 1 year old Cleaner sacked for eating leftover tuna sandwich takes legal action against City law firm This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Cleaner sacked for eating leftover tuna sandwich takes legal action against City law firm This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Cleaner sacked for eating leftover tuna sandwich takes legal action against City law firm This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Gabriela Rodriguez cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years Gabriela Rodriguez cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years Gabriela Rodriguez cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years A cleaner is taking legal action against a top City law firm for indirect race discrimination after being fired for eating a leftover tuna sandwich from a discarded platter. Gabriela Rodriguez from Ecuador cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years. United Voices of the World union (UVW), which supports migrant workers, claims she was sacked just before Christmas 2023 after contractor Total Clean received a complaint from Devonshires Solicitors that leftover sandwiches were not being returned. The union confirmed Rodriguez ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. The claim was first reported by legal affairs website RollOnFriday . She was then let go for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse”. In an attempt to get Rodriguez reinstated, dozens of UVW members – including cleaners, legal sector workers and hospitality workers – protested outside Devonshires’ offices on Valentine’s Day bearing 100 cans of tuna, 300 hand-wrapped sandwiches, several helium heart-shaped balloons, and love letters for Rodriguez. Petros Elia, the general secretary of UVW, said the union was “mission-bound as a trade union which represents large numbers of cleaners” – most of whom are migrant workers. Elia added: “Cleaners are routinely dismissed on trivial and, we argue, discriminatory grounds like this every day around the country. Many describe feeling treated ‘like the dirt they clean’ and Gabriela is one of them. We will raise our voices and unite to fight any employer – even big powerful companies like Devonshires Solicitors. “And just because we clean their dirt, does not mean they can treat us like dirt. We demand respect, dignity and equality, regardless of the language we speak, our country of origin, or the colour of our skin. “We are taking both Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal. For Total Clean, the claims are for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination. For Devonshires Solicitors the claims are for direct and/or indirect race discrimination.” UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was an act of discrimination alleging if she was not a Latin American with limited English, Devonshires would not have complained about her, which led to her dismissal. A Total Clean spokesperson told the Guardian: “While we would not typically comment on personnel issues, we would like to address the misleading and inaccurate information that is being alleged by our ex-employee. It is important to us to maintain the integrity of our workforce and service by ensuring we deal appropriately with any actions that undermine the hard work and reputation of our incredible team who conduct themselves impeccably. Trust and honesty is of paramount importance. “All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.” A spokesperson for Devonshires Solicitors said: “Devonshires did not make a formal complaint against Gabriela and expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever. “This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object – as we never have done – to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.” Explore more on these topics Law Trade unions London news Share Reuse this content A cleaner is taking legal action against a top City law firm for indirect race discrimination after being fired for eating a leftover tuna sandwich from a discarded platter. Gabriela Rodriguez from Ecuador cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years. United Voices of the World union (UVW), which supports migrant workers, claims she was sacked just before Christmas 2023 after contractor Total Clean received a complaint from Devonshires Solicitors that leftover sandwiches were not being returned. The union confirmed Rodriguez ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. The claim was first reported by legal affairs website RollOnFriday . She was then let go for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse”. In an attempt to get Rodriguez reinstated, dozens of UVW members – including cleaners, legal sector workers and hospitality workers – protested outside Devonshires’ offices on Valentine’s Day bearing 100 cans of tuna, 300 hand-wrapped sandwiches, several helium heart-shaped balloons, and love letters for Rodriguez. Petros Elia, the general secretary of UVW, said the union was “mission-bound as a trade union which represents large numbers of cleaners” – most of whom are migrant workers. Elia added: “Cleaners are routinely dismissed on trivial and, we argue, discriminatory grounds like this every day around the country. Many describe feeling treated ‘like the dirt they clean’ and Gabriela is one of them. We will raise our voices and unite to fight any employer – even big powerful companies like Devonshires Solicitors. “And just because we clean their dirt, does not mean they can treat us like dirt. We demand respect, dignity and equality, regardless of the language we speak, our country of origin, or the colour of our skin. “We are taking both Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal. For Total Clean, the claims are for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination. For Devonshires Solicitors the claims are for direct and/or indirect race discrimination.” UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was an act of discrimination alleging if she was not a Latin American with limited English, Devonshires would not have complained about her, which led to her dismissal. A Total Clean spokesperson told the Guardian: “While we would not typically comment on personnel issues, we would like to address the misleading and inaccurate information that is being alleged by our ex-employee. It is important to us to maintain the integrity of our workforce and service by ensuring we deal appropriately with any actions that undermine the hard work and reputation of our incredible team who conduct themselves impeccably. Trust and honesty is of paramount importance. “All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.” A spokesperson for Devonshires Solicitors said: “Devonshires did not make a formal complaint against Gabriela and expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever. “This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object – as we never have done – to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.” Explore more on these topics Law Trade unions London news Share Reuse this content A cleaner is taking legal action against a top City law firm for indirect race discrimination after being fired for eating a leftover tuna sandwich from a discarded platter. Gabriela Rodriguez from Ecuador cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years. United Voices of the World union (UVW), which supports migrant workers, claims she was sacked just before Christmas 2023 after contractor Total Clean received a complaint from Devonshires Solicitors that leftover sandwiches were not being returned. The union confirmed Rodriguez ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. The claim was first reported by legal affairs website RollOnFriday . She was then let go for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse”. In an attempt to get Rodriguez reinstated, dozens of UVW members – including cleaners, legal sector workers and hospitality workers – protested outside Devonshires’ offices on Valentine’s Day bearing 100 cans of tuna, 300 hand-wrapped sandwiches, several helium heart-shaped balloons, and love letters for Rodriguez. Petros Elia, the general secretary of UVW, said the union was “mission-bound as a trade union which represents large numbers of cleaners” – most of whom are migrant workers. Elia added: “Cleaners are routinely dismissed on trivial and, we argue, discriminatory grounds like this every day around the country. Many describe feeling treated ‘like the dirt they clean’ and Gabriela is one of them. We will raise our voices and unite to fight any employer – even big powerful companies like Devonshires Solicitors. “And just because we clean their dirt, does not mean they can treat us like dirt. We demand respect, dignity and equality, regardless of the language we speak, our country of origin, or the colour of our skin. “We are taking both Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal. For Total Clean, the claims are for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination. For Devonshires Solicitors the claims are for direct and/or indirect race discrimination.” UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was an act of discrimination alleging if she was not a Latin American with limited English, Devonshires would not have complained about her, which led to her dismissal. A Total Clean spokesperson told the Guardian: “While we would not typically comment on personnel issues, we would like to address the misleading and inaccurate information that is being alleged by our ex-employee. It is important to us to maintain the integrity of our workforce and service by ensuring we deal appropriately with any actions that undermine the hard work and reputation of our incredible team who conduct themselves impeccably. Trust and honesty is of paramount importance. “All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.” A spokesperson for Devonshires Solicitors said: “Devonshires did not make a formal complaint against Gabriela and expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever. “This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object – as we never have done – to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.” A cleaner is taking legal action against a top City law firm for indirect race discrimination after being fired for eating a leftover tuna sandwich from a discarded platter. Gabriela Rodriguez from Ecuador cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years. United Voices of the World union (UVW), which supports migrant workers, claims she was sacked just before Christmas 2023 after contractor Total Clean received a complaint from Devonshires Solicitors that leftover sandwiches were not being returned. The union confirmed Rodriguez ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. The claim was first reported by legal affairs website RollOnFriday . She was then let go for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse”. In an attempt to get Rodriguez reinstated, dozens of UVW members – including cleaners, legal sector workers and hospitality workers – protested outside Devonshires’ offices on Valentine’s Day bearing 100 cans of tuna, 300 hand-wrapped sandwiches, several helium heart-shaped balloons, and love letters for Rodriguez. Petros Elia, the general secretary of UVW, said the union was “mission-bound as a trade union which represents large numbers of cleaners” – most of whom are migrant workers. Elia added: “Cleaners are routinely dismissed on trivial and, we argue, discriminatory grounds like this every day around the country. Many describe feeling treated ‘like the dirt they clean’ and Gabriela is one of them. We will raise our voices and unite to fight any employer – even big powerful companies like Devonshires Solicitors. “And just because we clean their dirt, does not mean they can treat us like dirt. We demand respect, dignity and equality, regardless of the language we speak, our country of origin, or the colour of our skin. “We are taking both Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal. For Total Clean, the claims are for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination. For Devonshires Solicitors the claims are for direct and/or indirect race discrimination.” UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was an act of discrimination alleging if she was not a Latin American with limited English, Devonshires would not have complained about her, which led to her dismissal. A Total Clean spokesperson told the Guardian: “While we would not typically comment on personnel issues, we would like to address the misleading and inaccurate information that is being alleged by our ex-employee. It is important to us to maintain the integrity of our workforce and service by ensuring we deal appropriately with any actions that undermine the hard work and reputation of our incredible team who conduct themselves impeccably. Trust and honesty is of paramount importance. “All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.” A spokesperson for Devonshires Solicitors said: “Devonshires did not make a formal complaint against Gabriela and expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever. “This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object – as we never have done – to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.” A cleaner is taking legal action against a top City law firm for indirect race discrimination after being fired for eating a leftover tuna sandwich from a discarded platter. Gabriela Rodriguez from Ecuador cleaned the offices of Devonshires Solicitors for two years. United Voices of the World union (UVW), which supports migrant workers, claims she was sacked just before Christmas 2023 after contractor Total Clean received a complaint from Devonshires Solicitors that leftover sandwiches were not being returned. The union confirmed Rodriguez ate a £1.50 tuna sandwich she thought would be discarded after a meeting of lawyers. The claim was first reported by legal affairs website RollOnFriday . She was then let go for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse”. In an attempt to get Rodriguez reinstated, dozens of UVW members – including cleaners, legal sector workers and hospitality workers – protested outside Devonshires’ offices on Valentine’s Day bearing 100 cans of tuna, 300 hand-wrapped sandwiches, several helium heart-shaped balloons, and love letters for Rodriguez. Petros Elia, the general secretary of UVW, said the union was “mission-bound as a trade union which represents large numbers of cleaners” – most of whom are migrant workers. Elia added: “Cleaners are routinely dismissed on trivial and, we argue, discriminatory grounds like this every day around the country. Many describe feeling treated ‘like the dirt they clean’ and Gabriela is one of them. We will raise our voices and unite to fight any employer – even big powerful companies like Devonshires Solicitors. “And just because we clean their dirt, does not mean they can treat us like dirt. We demand respect, dignity and equality, regardless of the language we speak, our country of origin, or the colour of our skin. “We are taking both Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal. For Total Clean, the claims are for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination. For Devonshires Solicitors the claims are for direct and/or indirect race discrimination.” UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was an act of discrimination alleging if she was not a Latin American with limited English, Devonshires would not have complained about her, which led to her dismissal. A Total Clean spokesperson told the Guardian: “While we would not typically comment on personnel issues, we would like to address the misleading and inaccurate information that is being alleged by our ex-employee. It is important to us to maintain the integrity of our workforce and service by ensuring we deal appropriately with any actions that undermine the hard work and reputation of our incredible team who conduct themselves impeccably. Trust and honesty is of paramount importance. “All steps taken have been in accordance with UK employment law following the proper investigative and disciplinary process. We will be making no further comment on the matter.” A spokesperson for Devonshires Solicitors said: “Devonshires did not make a formal complaint against Gabriela and expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. Total Clean carried out their own investigation and the decision to dismiss Gabriela was taken without any input or influence from Devonshires whatsoever. “This is a private matter between Total Clean and Gabriela but we have made clear to Total Clean that we would not object – as we never have done – to Gabriela attending and working on our premises if Total Clean changes its position.” Explore more on these topics Law Trade unions London news Share Reuse this content |
Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn
Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn This article is more than 1 year old Labour backbenchers urge party not to whip them against SNP’s motion calling for immediate ceasefire Keir Starmer risks triggering the biggest rebellion of his leadership if he tries to stop his MPs voting on Wednesday for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, backbenchers have warned. Labour MPs are urging their leader not to whip them against voting for a Scottish National party motion this week calling for a ceasefire, three months after a similar vote saw 56 members rebel, including eight frontbenchers. Party whips have not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote, but several MPs have told the Guardian they risk another damaging internal row if they try to oppose it. The Scottish Labour party voted this weekend in favour an immediate ceasefire, but Starmer has so far stopped short of backing such a position, saying instead that Israel and Hamas need to “get to” an end to the fighting. One Labour MP said: “I suspect it will be far more than the 56 who [rebelled] last time, especially given the Scottish Labour position and how many more MPs are really under pressure on this now.” Another said: “I hope we end up in a better position than last time – we need to not get into the same position as last time.” Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms Read more The Middle East crisis has proven one of the toughest tests of Starmer’s leadership. The Labour leader was criticised in the weeks after the 7 October attack for his strenuous defence of Israel’s military action. Then in November, he suffered the biggest rebellion since becoming leader when dozens of MPs defied orders to vote for an SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. Last week, Starmer suspended two Labour candidates for making derogatory remarks about Israel during a meeting designed to persuade those upset by his stance on the war not to leave the party. He was accused of acting too slowly to discipline Azhar Ali, however, after the party’s candidate in Rochdale was recorded saying he believed Israel had allowed the 7 October attack to happen as a pretext for war. The SNP is now seeking to reopen Labour’s wounds with a motion on Wednesday mirroring the one in November. Since then, however, the Labour leadership has changed its position on the war, including calling for a ceasefire, even if not backing a permanent one straight away. Starmer told the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow this weekend that the “fighting must stop now” in Gaza, warning Israel not to invade the southern city of Rafah, where 1.5 million people are taking refuge. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Read more Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, spurred hope among some Labour MPs that the party’s position was changing further when he said on Monday morning that Israel had gone “beyond reasonable self-defence” in Gaza. He told Sky News: “We want to see a ceasefire, of course we do. And we have been increasingly concerned, as the wider international community has been, with the disproportionate loss of civilian life in Gaza . “Israel has a responsibility to get its hostages back, every country in the world has a right to defend itself. But I think what we have seen are actions that go beyond reasonable self-defence and also call into question whether Israel has broken international law. The ICJ [international court of justice] are now investigating and we take all of that seriously.” Asked if he thought Israel had gone beyond what was proportionate, Streeting replied: “I think, objectively, yes, Israel has gone too far. And we have seen that with a disproportionate loss of innocent civilian life.” In another interview on TalkTV, however, Streeting said the party’s leadership had not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote. “We’ll see what the final motion looks like,” he said.“We’re considering our own options on this – we all want to see a ceasefire. We’ve seen an intolerable loss of innocent civilian life during the course of this war. “But we’re not going to be pushed around by protesters, and we’re not going to be told what to say by our opponents in parliament either.” Guardian Newsroom: The unfolding crisis in the Middle East On Wednesday 20 March, 7-8.15pm GMT, join Devika Bhat, Peter Beaumont and Ghaith Abdul-Ahad as they discuss the fast developing crisis in the Middle East. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Explore more on these topics Labour Keir Starmer Israel-Gaza war Gaza Scottish National party (SNP) news Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn This article is more than 1 year old Labour backbenchers urge party not to whip them against SNP’s motion calling for immediate ceasefire Keir Starmer risks triggering the biggest rebellion of his leadership if he tries to stop his MPs voting on Wednesday for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, backbenchers have warned. Labour MPs are urging their leader not to whip them against voting for a Scottish National party motion this week calling for a ceasefire, three months after a similar vote saw 56 members rebel, including eight frontbenchers. Party whips have not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote, but several MPs have told the Guardian they risk another damaging internal row if they try to oppose it. The Scottish Labour party voted this weekend in favour an immediate ceasefire, but Starmer has so far stopped short of backing such a position, saying instead that Israel and Hamas need to “get to” an end to the fighting. One Labour MP said: “I suspect it will be far more than the 56 who [rebelled] last time, especially given the Scottish Labour position and how many more MPs are really under pressure on this now.” Another said: “I hope we end up in a better position than last time – we need to not get into the same position as last time.” Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms Read more The Middle East crisis has proven one of the toughest tests of Starmer’s leadership. The Labour leader was criticised in the weeks after the 7 October attack for his strenuous defence of Israel’s military action. Then in November, he suffered the biggest rebellion since becoming leader when dozens of MPs defied orders to vote for an SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. Last week, Starmer suspended two Labour candidates for making derogatory remarks about Israel during a meeting designed to persuade those upset by his stance on the war not to leave the party. He was accused of acting too slowly to discipline Azhar Ali, however, after the party’s candidate in Rochdale was recorded saying he believed Israel had allowed the 7 October attack to happen as a pretext for war. The SNP is now seeking to reopen Labour’s wounds with a motion on Wednesday mirroring the one in November. Since then, however, the Labour leadership has changed its position on the war, including calling for a ceasefire, even if not backing a permanent one straight away. Starmer told the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow this weekend that the “fighting must stop now” in Gaza, warning Israel not to invade the southern city of Rafah, where 1.5 million people are taking refuge. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Read more Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, spurred hope among some Labour MPs that the party’s position was changing further when he said on Monday morning that Israel had gone “beyond reasonable self-defence” in Gaza. He told Sky News: “We want to see a ceasefire, of course we do. And we have been increasingly concerned, as the wider international community has been, with the disproportionate loss of civilian life in Gaza . “Israel has a responsibility to get its hostages back, every country in the world has a right to defend itself. But I think what we have seen are actions that go beyond reasonable self-defence and also call into question whether Israel has broken international law. The ICJ [international court of justice] are now investigating and we take all of that seriously.” Asked if he thought Israel had gone beyond what was proportionate, Streeting replied: “I think, objectively, yes, Israel has gone too far. And we have seen that with a disproportionate loss of innocent civilian life.” In another interview on TalkTV, however, Streeting said the party’s leadership had not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote. “We’ll see what the final motion looks like,” he said.“We’re considering our own options on this – we all want to see a ceasefire. We’ve seen an intolerable loss of innocent civilian life during the course of this war. “But we’re not going to be pushed around by protesters, and we’re not going to be told what to say by our opponents in parliament either.” Guardian Newsroom: The unfolding crisis in the Middle East On Wednesday 20 March, 7-8.15pm GMT, join Devika Bhat, Peter Beaumont and Ghaith Abdul-Ahad as they discuss the fast developing crisis in the Middle East. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Explore more on these topics Labour Keir Starmer Israel-Gaza war Gaza Scottish National party (SNP) news Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images Keir Starmer said this weekend that ‘the fighting must stop now’. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Labour backbenchers urge party not to whip them against SNP’s motion calling for immediate ceasefire Labour backbenchers urge party not to whip them against SNP’s motion calling for immediate ceasefire Labour backbenchers urge party not to whip them against SNP’s motion calling for immediate ceasefire Keir Starmer risks triggering the biggest rebellion of his leadership if he tries to stop his MPs voting on Wednesday for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, backbenchers have warned. Labour MPs are urging their leader not to whip them against voting for a Scottish National party motion this week calling for a ceasefire, three months after a similar vote saw 56 members rebel, including eight frontbenchers. Party whips have not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote, but several MPs have told the Guardian they risk another damaging internal row if they try to oppose it. The Scottish Labour party voted this weekend in favour an immediate ceasefire, but Starmer has so far stopped short of backing such a position, saying instead that Israel and Hamas need to “get to” an end to the fighting. One Labour MP said: “I suspect it will be far more than the 56 who [rebelled] last time, especially given the Scottish Labour position and how many more MPs are really under pressure on this now.” Another said: “I hope we end up in a better position than last time – we need to not get into the same position as last time.” Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms Read more The Middle East crisis has proven one of the toughest tests of Starmer’s leadership. The Labour leader was criticised in the weeks after the 7 October attack for his strenuous defence of Israel’s military action. Then in November, he suffered the biggest rebellion since becoming leader when dozens of MPs defied orders to vote for an SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. Last week, Starmer suspended two Labour candidates for making derogatory remarks about Israel during a meeting designed to persuade those upset by his stance on the war not to leave the party. He was accused of acting too slowly to discipline Azhar Ali, however, after the party’s candidate in Rochdale was recorded saying he believed Israel had allowed the 7 October attack to happen as a pretext for war. The SNP is now seeking to reopen Labour’s wounds with a motion on Wednesday mirroring the one in November. Since then, however, the Labour leadership has changed its position on the war, including calling for a ceasefire, even if not backing a permanent one straight away. Starmer told the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow this weekend that the “fighting must stop now” in Gaza, warning Israel not to invade the southern city of Rafah, where 1.5 million people are taking refuge. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Read more Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, spurred hope among some Labour MPs that the party’s position was changing further when he said on Monday morning that Israel had gone “beyond reasonable self-defence” in Gaza. He told Sky News: “We want to see a ceasefire, of course we do. And we have been increasingly concerned, as the wider international community has been, with the disproportionate loss of civilian life in Gaza . “Israel has a responsibility to get its hostages back, every country in the world has a right to defend itself. But I think what we have seen are actions that go beyond reasonable self-defence and also call into question whether Israel has broken international law. The ICJ [international court of justice] are now investigating and we take all of that seriously.” Asked if he thought Israel had gone beyond what was proportionate, Streeting replied: “I think, objectively, yes, Israel has gone too far. And we have seen that with a disproportionate loss of innocent civilian life.” In another interview on TalkTV, however, Streeting said the party’s leadership had not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote. “We’ll see what the final motion looks like,” he said.“We’re considering our own options on this – we all want to see a ceasefire. We’ve seen an intolerable loss of innocent civilian life during the course of this war. “But we’re not going to be pushed around by protesters, and we’re not going to be told what to say by our opponents in parliament either.” Guardian Newsroom: The unfolding crisis in the Middle East On Wednesday 20 March, 7-8.15pm GMT, join Devika Bhat, Peter Beaumont and Ghaith Abdul-Ahad as they discuss the fast developing crisis in the Middle East. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Explore more on these topics Labour Keir Starmer Israel-Gaza war Gaza Scottish National party (SNP) news Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer risks triggering the biggest rebellion of his leadership if he tries to stop his MPs voting on Wednesday for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, backbenchers have warned. Labour MPs are urging their leader not to whip them against voting for a Scottish National party motion this week calling for a ceasefire, three months after a similar vote saw 56 members rebel, including eight frontbenchers. Party whips have not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote, but several MPs have told the Guardian they risk another damaging internal row if they try to oppose it. The Scottish Labour party voted this weekend in favour an immediate ceasefire, but Starmer has so far stopped short of backing such a position, saying instead that Israel and Hamas need to “get to” an end to the fighting. One Labour MP said: “I suspect it will be far more than the 56 who [rebelled] last time, especially given the Scottish Labour position and how many more MPs are really under pressure on this now.” Another said: “I hope we end up in a better position than last time – we need to not get into the same position as last time.” Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms Read more The Middle East crisis has proven one of the toughest tests of Starmer’s leadership. The Labour leader was criticised in the weeks after the 7 October attack for his strenuous defence of Israel’s military action. Then in November, he suffered the biggest rebellion since becoming leader when dozens of MPs defied orders to vote for an SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. Last week, Starmer suspended two Labour candidates for making derogatory remarks about Israel during a meeting designed to persuade those upset by his stance on the war not to leave the party. He was accused of acting too slowly to discipline Azhar Ali, however, after the party’s candidate in Rochdale was recorded saying he believed Israel had allowed the 7 October attack to happen as a pretext for war. The SNP is now seeking to reopen Labour’s wounds with a motion on Wednesday mirroring the one in November. Since then, however, the Labour leadership has changed its position on the war, including calling for a ceasefire, even if not backing a permanent one straight away. Starmer told the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow this weekend that the “fighting must stop now” in Gaza, warning Israel not to invade the southern city of Rafah, where 1.5 million people are taking refuge. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Read more Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, spurred hope among some Labour MPs that the party’s position was changing further when he said on Monday morning that Israel had gone “beyond reasonable self-defence” in Gaza. He told Sky News: “We want to see a ceasefire, of course we do. And we have been increasingly concerned, as the wider international community has been, with the disproportionate loss of civilian life in Gaza . “Israel has a responsibility to get its hostages back, every country in the world has a right to defend itself. But I think what we have seen are actions that go beyond reasonable self-defence and also call into question whether Israel has broken international law. The ICJ [international court of justice] are now investigating and we take all of that seriously.” Asked if he thought Israel had gone beyond what was proportionate, Streeting replied: “I think, objectively, yes, Israel has gone too far. And we have seen that with a disproportionate loss of innocent civilian life.” In another interview on TalkTV, however, Streeting said the party’s leadership had not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote. “We’ll see what the final motion looks like,” he said.“We’re considering our own options on this – we all want to see a ceasefire. We’ve seen an intolerable loss of innocent civilian life during the course of this war. “But we’re not going to be pushed around by protesters, and we’re not going to be told what to say by our opponents in parliament either.” Guardian Newsroom: The unfolding crisis in the Middle East On Wednesday 20 March, 7-8.15pm GMT, join Devika Bhat, Peter Beaumont and Ghaith Abdul-Ahad as they discuss the fast developing crisis in the Middle East. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Explore more on these topics Labour Keir Starmer Israel-Gaza war Gaza Scottish National party (SNP) news Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer risks triggering the biggest rebellion of his leadership if he tries to stop his MPs voting on Wednesday for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, backbenchers have warned. Labour MPs are urging their leader not to whip them against voting for a Scottish National party motion this week calling for a ceasefire, three months after a similar vote saw 56 members rebel, including eight frontbenchers. Party whips have not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote, but several MPs have told the Guardian they risk another damaging internal row if they try to oppose it. The Scottish Labour party voted this weekend in favour an immediate ceasefire, but Starmer has so far stopped short of backing such a position, saying instead that Israel and Hamas need to “get to” an end to the fighting. One Labour MP said: “I suspect it will be far more than the 56 who [rebelled] last time, especially given the Scottish Labour position and how many more MPs are really under pressure on this now.” Another said: “I hope we end up in a better position than last time – we need to not get into the same position as last time.” Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms Read more The Middle East crisis has proven one of the toughest tests of Starmer’s leadership. The Labour leader was criticised in the weeks after the 7 October attack for his strenuous defence of Israel’s military action. Then in November, he suffered the biggest rebellion since becoming leader when dozens of MPs defied orders to vote for an SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. Last week, Starmer suspended two Labour candidates for making derogatory remarks about Israel during a meeting designed to persuade those upset by his stance on the war not to leave the party. He was accused of acting too slowly to discipline Azhar Ali, however, after the party’s candidate in Rochdale was recorded saying he believed Israel had allowed the 7 October attack to happen as a pretext for war. The SNP is now seeking to reopen Labour’s wounds with a motion on Wednesday mirroring the one in November. Since then, however, the Labour leadership has changed its position on the war, including calling for a ceasefire, even if not backing a permanent one straight away. Starmer told the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow this weekend that the “fighting must stop now” in Gaza, warning Israel not to invade the southern city of Rafah, where 1.5 million people are taking refuge. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Read more Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, spurred hope among some Labour MPs that the party’s position was changing further when he said on Monday morning that Israel had gone “beyond reasonable self-defence” in Gaza. He told Sky News: “We want to see a ceasefire, of course we do. And we have been increasingly concerned, as the wider international community has been, with the disproportionate loss of civilian life in Gaza . “Israel has a responsibility to get its hostages back, every country in the world has a right to defend itself. But I think what we have seen are actions that go beyond reasonable self-defence and also call into question whether Israel has broken international law. The ICJ [international court of justice] are now investigating and we take all of that seriously.” Asked if he thought Israel had gone beyond what was proportionate, Streeting replied: “I think, objectively, yes, Israel has gone too far. And we have seen that with a disproportionate loss of innocent civilian life.” In another interview on TalkTV, however, Streeting said the party’s leadership had not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote. “We’ll see what the final motion looks like,” he said.“We’re considering our own options on this – we all want to see a ceasefire. We’ve seen an intolerable loss of innocent civilian life during the course of this war. “But we’re not going to be pushed around by protesters, and we’re not going to be told what to say by our opponents in parliament either.” Guardian Newsroom: The unfolding crisis in the Middle East On Wednesday 20 March, 7-8.15pm GMT, join Devika Bhat, Peter Beaumont and Ghaith Abdul-Ahad as they discuss the fast developing crisis in the Middle East. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Keir Starmer risks triggering the biggest rebellion of his leadership if he tries to stop his MPs voting on Wednesday for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, backbenchers have warned. Labour MPs are urging their leader not to whip them against voting for a Scottish National party motion this week calling for a ceasefire, three months after a similar vote saw 56 members rebel, including eight frontbenchers. Party whips have not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote, but several MPs have told the Guardian they risk another damaging internal row if they try to oppose it. The Scottish Labour party voted this weekend in favour an immediate ceasefire, but Starmer has so far stopped short of backing such a position, saying instead that Israel and Hamas need to “get to” an end to the fighting. One Labour MP said: “I suspect it will be far more than the 56 who [rebelled] last time, especially given the Scottish Labour position and how many more MPs are really under pressure on this now.” Another said: “I hope we end up in a better position than last time – we need to not get into the same position as last time.” Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms Read more The Middle East crisis has proven one of the toughest tests of Starmer’s leadership. The Labour leader was criticised in the weeks after the 7 October attack for his strenuous defence of Israel’s military action. Then in November, he suffered the biggest rebellion since becoming leader when dozens of MPs defied orders to vote for an SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. Last week, Starmer suspended two Labour candidates for making derogatory remarks about Israel during a meeting designed to persuade those upset by his stance on the war not to leave the party. He was accused of acting too slowly to discipline Azhar Ali, however, after the party’s candidate in Rochdale was recorded saying he believed Israel had allowed the 7 October attack to happen as a pretext for war. The SNP is now seeking to reopen Labour’s wounds with a motion on Wednesday mirroring the one in November. Since then, however, the Labour leadership has changed its position on the war, including calling for a ceasefire, even if not backing a permanent one straight away. Starmer told the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow this weekend that the “fighting must stop now” in Gaza, warning Israel not to invade the southern city of Rafah, where 1.5 million people are taking refuge. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Read more Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, spurred hope among some Labour MPs that the party’s position was changing further when he said on Monday morning that Israel had gone “beyond reasonable self-defence” in Gaza. He told Sky News: “We want to see a ceasefire, of course we do. And we have been increasingly concerned, as the wider international community has been, with the disproportionate loss of civilian life in Gaza . “Israel has a responsibility to get its hostages back, every country in the world has a right to defend itself. But I think what we have seen are actions that go beyond reasonable self-defence and also call into question whether Israel has broken international law. The ICJ [international court of justice] are now investigating and we take all of that seriously.” Asked if he thought Israel had gone beyond what was proportionate, Streeting replied: “I think, objectively, yes, Israel has gone too far. And we have seen that with a disproportionate loss of innocent civilian life.” In another interview on TalkTV, however, Streeting said the party’s leadership had not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote. “We’ll see what the final motion looks like,” he said.“We’re considering our own options on this – we all want to see a ceasefire. We’ve seen an intolerable loss of innocent civilian life during the course of this war. “But we’re not going to be pushed around by protesters, and we’re not going to be told what to say by our opponents in parliament either.” Guardian Newsroom: The unfolding crisis in the Middle East On Wednesday 20 March, 7-8.15pm GMT, join Devika Bhat, Peter Beaumont and Ghaith Abdul-Ahad as they discuss the fast developing crisis in the Middle East. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Keir Starmer risks triggering the biggest rebellion of his leadership if he tries to stop his MPs voting on Wednesday for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, backbenchers have warned. Labour MPs are urging their leader not to whip them against voting for a Scottish National party motion this week calling for a ceasefire, three months after a similar vote saw 56 members rebel, including eight frontbenchers. Party whips have not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote, but several MPs have told the Guardian they risk another damaging internal row if they try to oppose it. The Scottish Labour party voted this weekend in favour an immediate ceasefire, but Starmer has so far stopped short of backing such a position, saying instead that Israel and Hamas need to “get to” an end to the fighting. One Labour MP said: “I suspect it will be far more than the 56 who [rebelled] last time, especially given the Scottish Labour position and how many more MPs are really under pressure on this now.” Another said: “I hope we end up in a better position than last time – we need to not get into the same position as last time.” Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms Read more Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms Read more Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms Read more Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms Starmer facing test of authority as ‘immediate’ Gaza ceasefire vote looms The Middle East crisis has proven one of the toughest tests of Starmer’s leadership. The Labour leader was criticised in the weeks after the 7 October attack for his strenuous defence of Israel’s military action. Then in November, he suffered the biggest rebellion since becoming leader when dozens of MPs defied orders to vote for an SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire. Last week, Starmer suspended two Labour candidates for making derogatory remarks about Israel during a meeting designed to persuade those upset by his stance on the war not to leave the party. He was accused of acting too slowly to discipline Azhar Ali, however, after the party’s candidate in Rochdale was recorded saying he believed Israel had allowed the 7 October attack to happen as a pretext for war. The SNP is now seeking to reopen Labour’s wounds with a motion on Wednesday mirroring the one in November. Since then, however, the Labour leadership has changed its position on the war, including calling for a ceasefire, even if not backing a permanent one straight away. Starmer told the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow this weekend that the “fighting must stop now” in Gaza, warning Israel not to invade the southern city of Rafah, where 1.5 million people are taking refuge. Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Read more Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Read more Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Read more Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Israel says it will launch Rafah assault if hostages not freed by Ramadan Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, spurred hope among some Labour MPs that the party’s position was changing further when he said on Monday morning that Israel had gone “beyond reasonable self-defence” in Gaza. He told Sky News: “We want to see a ceasefire, of course we do. And we have been increasingly concerned, as the wider international community has been, with the disproportionate loss of civilian life in Gaza . “Israel has a responsibility to get its hostages back, every country in the world has a right to defend itself. But I think what we have seen are actions that go beyond reasonable self-defence and also call into question whether Israel has broken international law. The ICJ [international court of justice] are now investigating and we take all of that seriously.” Asked if he thought Israel had gone beyond what was proportionate, Streeting replied: “I think, objectively, yes, Israel has gone too far. And we have seen that with a disproportionate loss of innocent civilian life.” In another interview on TalkTV, however, Streeting said the party’s leadership had not yet decided how to approach Wednesday’s vote. “We’ll see what the final motion looks like,” he said.“We’re considering our own options on this – we all want to see a ceasefire. We’ve seen an intolerable loss of innocent civilian life during the course of this war. “But we’re not going to be pushed around by protesters, and we’re not going to be told what to say by our opponents in parliament either.” Guardian Newsroom: The unfolding crisis in the Middle East On Wednesday 20 March, 7-8.15pm GMT, join Devika Bhat, Peter Beaumont and Ghaith Abdul-Ahad as they discuss the fast developing crisis in the Middle East. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live Explore more on these topics Labour Keir Starmer Israel-Gaza war Gaza Scottish National party (SNP) news Share Reuse this content Labour Keir Starmer Israel-Gaza war Gaza Scottish National party (SNP) news |
‘Assault on rights of juries’: activist decries Tory challenge to legal defence for protesters
Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old ‘Assault on rights of juries’: activist decries Tory challenge to legal defence for protesters This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Acquitted activist says attorney general trying to remove ‘last remaining defence’ for climate protesters T he woman at the centre of an attempt by the government’s senior law officer to remove one of the last remaining legal defences available to climate protesters says the move is an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. But the attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is taking her case to the court of appeal on Wednesday to argue the defence used at the trial should no longer be available to climate activists. The action follows a series of high-profile jury acquittals of climate protesters who spray-painted buildings of organisations and companies including HSBC. Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters Read more The attorney general cannot challenge a not guilty verdict made by a jury, but can go to the court of appeal on a point of law. Prentis will argue that the defence of lawful excuse used by the woman, who is known as C, should not be available for acts of protest. Under the “consent” defence, the defendant argues that they have a lawful excuse for their action because they honestly believe the organisation affected by the action would consent to the damage if it knew of the “destruction and damage and its circumstances”. C and other protesters have successfully argued to juries that the objects of their direct action would have consented if they had known more about the climate emergency. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Among the climate protesters who have successfully used the defence during the last year, nine were found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank, and several individuals were acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. Prentis has said she wants “clarity on the law as guidance for future cases” involving climate and environmental protesters. According to documents submitted to the court of appeal she is arguing specifically that the defence should not be available to protesters, rather than all defendants in criminal damage cases. Tim Crosland, a former barrister and the director of environmental campaign group Plan B, said this was blatantly discriminatory. C said the Crown Prosecution Service had tried to have the consent defence removed from her in legal argument before the trial. But the trial judge rejected the CPS motion. “They spent some time arguing this, but this was thrown out by the judge and I was allowed to use the defence,” C said. “They lost then, and it looks like they are trying to have another go. It feels like another attack on the democratic right of a defendant to have a jury decide its verdict. “It is a way to undermine my not guilty verdict, but it is worse because if they win the defence will be taken away for every climate defendant after me. “They are spending taxpayers’ money trying to undermine the jury and they are using this as a way to deny any last remaining defence to climate protesters.” Last year, restrictions were imposed on environmental protesters during trials that forbade them from mentioning climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement to explain their motivation for their actions to a jury. Several defendants who defied the rules were jailed for contempt of court as a result. Last month, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders condemned the the use of “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions to crack down on climate protesters in Britain. Michel Forst said as the world faced a triple planetary crisis of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected. C said she was upset that her case was being taken to the appeal court in this way, adding: “I don’t have a voice in this at all.” She said it came after “regressive” new laws under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023 curbed the right to protest. Both pieces of legislation were also condemned by the UN rapporteur. Prentis said she decided to go to the court of appeal after seeing a number of climate activists acquitted of criminal damage last year. “I have made this reference as it is important that the law is clear and fairly applied. I look forward to the court of appeal considering this issue, and would like to emphasise that regardless of the outcome of this reference, it cannot affect those who have been acquitted through the usual trial process,” she said. In her skeleton argument submitted to the court, Prentis said: “C’s evidence … was evidence which need not have been given at all.” The attorney general said the trial judged had erred in law by allowing the issue of belief in consent as an issue to be left to the jury. It is not the first time the Conservative government’s senior law officer has turned to the court of appeal to express unhappiness at a jury acquittal for criminal damage. Suella Braverman, when attorney general referred a point of law after four people were cleared over the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. The court of appeal ruled in her favour, removing the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision has since been used to stop climate activists from using the same defence – that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference the right to protest under the European convention of human rights – for other lesser offences including public nuisance. Explore more on these topics Climate crisis UK criminal justice Protest UK civil liberties features Share Reuse this content Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old ‘Assault on rights of juries’: activist decries Tory challenge to legal defence for protesters This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Acquitted activist says attorney general trying to remove ‘last remaining defence’ for climate protesters T he woman at the centre of an attempt by the government’s senior law officer to remove one of the last remaining legal defences available to climate protesters says the move is an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. But the attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is taking her case to the court of appeal on Wednesday to argue the defence used at the trial should no longer be available to climate activists. The action follows a series of high-profile jury acquittals of climate protesters who spray-painted buildings of organisations and companies including HSBC. Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters Read more The attorney general cannot challenge a not guilty verdict made by a jury, but can go to the court of appeal on a point of law. Prentis will argue that the defence of lawful excuse used by the woman, who is known as C, should not be available for acts of protest. Under the “consent” defence, the defendant argues that they have a lawful excuse for their action because they honestly believe the organisation affected by the action would consent to the damage if it knew of the “destruction and damage and its circumstances”. C and other protesters have successfully argued to juries that the objects of their direct action would have consented if they had known more about the climate emergency. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Among the climate protesters who have successfully used the defence during the last year, nine were found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank, and several individuals were acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. Prentis has said she wants “clarity on the law as guidance for future cases” involving climate and environmental protesters. According to documents submitted to the court of appeal she is arguing specifically that the defence should not be available to protesters, rather than all defendants in criminal damage cases. Tim Crosland, a former barrister and the director of environmental campaign group Plan B, said this was blatantly discriminatory. C said the Crown Prosecution Service had tried to have the consent defence removed from her in legal argument before the trial. But the trial judge rejected the CPS motion. “They spent some time arguing this, but this was thrown out by the judge and I was allowed to use the defence,” C said. “They lost then, and it looks like they are trying to have another go. It feels like another attack on the democratic right of a defendant to have a jury decide its verdict. “It is a way to undermine my not guilty verdict, but it is worse because if they win the defence will be taken away for every climate defendant after me. “They are spending taxpayers’ money trying to undermine the jury and they are using this as a way to deny any last remaining defence to climate protesters.” Last year, restrictions were imposed on environmental protesters during trials that forbade them from mentioning climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement to explain their motivation for their actions to a jury. Several defendants who defied the rules were jailed for contempt of court as a result. Last month, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders condemned the the use of “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions to crack down on climate protesters in Britain. Michel Forst said as the world faced a triple planetary crisis of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected. C said she was upset that her case was being taken to the appeal court in this way, adding: “I don’t have a voice in this at all.” She said it came after “regressive” new laws under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023 curbed the right to protest. Both pieces of legislation were also condemned by the UN rapporteur. Prentis said she decided to go to the court of appeal after seeing a number of climate activists acquitted of criminal damage last year. “I have made this reference as it is important that the law is clear and fairly applied. I look forward to the court of appeal considering this issue, and would like to emphasise that regardless of the outcome of this reference, it cannot affect those who have been acquitted through the usual trial process,” she said. In her skeleton argument submitted to the court, Prentis said: “C’s evidence … was evidence which need not have been given at all.” The attorney general said the trial judged had erred in law by allowing the issue of belief in consent as an issue to be left to the jury. It is not the first time the Conservative government’s senior law officer has turned to the court of appeal to express unhappiness at a jury acquittal for criminal damage. Suella Braverman, when attorney general referred a point of law after four people were cleared over the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. The court of appeal ruled in her favour, removing the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision has since been used to stop climate activists from using the same defence – that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference the right to protest under the European convention of human rights – for other lesser offences including public nuisance. Explore more on these topics Climate crisis UK criminal justice Protest UK civil liberties features Share Reuse this content Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer View image in fullscreen Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer Just Stop Oil activists use orange spray paint during a protest in central London as part of the campaign to highlight climate change. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old ‘Assault on rights of juries’: activist decries Tory challenge to legal defence for protesters This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Assault on rights of juries’: activist decries Tory challenge to legal defence for protesters This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Assault on rights of juries’: activist decries Tory challenge to legal defence for protesters This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Acquitted activist says attorney general trying to remove ‘last remaining defence’ for climate protesters Exclusive: Acquitted activist says attorney general trying to remove ‘last remaining defence’ for climate protesters Exclusive: Acquitted activist says attorney general trying to remove ‘last remaining defence’ for climate protesters T he woman at the centre of an attempt by the government’s senior law officer to remove one of the last remaining legal defences available to climate protesters says the move is an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. But the attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is taking her case to the court of appeal on Wednesday to argue the defence used at the trial should no longer be available to climate activists. The action follows a series of high-profile jury acquittals of climate protesters who spray-painted buildings of organisations and companies including HSBC. Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters Read more The attorney general cannot challenge a not guilty verdict made by a jury, but can go to the court of appeal on a point of law. Prentis will argue that the defence of lawful excuse used by the woman, who is known as C, should not be available for acts of protest. Under the “consent” defence, the defendant argues that they have a lawful excuse for their action because they honestly believe the organisation affected by the action would consent to the damage if it knew of the “destruction and damage and its circumstances”. C and other protesters have successfully argued to juries that the objects of their direct action would have consented if they had known more about the climate emergency. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Among the climate protesters who have successfully used the defence during the last year, nine were found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank, and several individuals were acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. Prentis has said she wants “clarity on the law as guidance for future cases” involving climate and environmental protesters. According to documents submitted to the court of appeal she is arguing specifically that the defence should not be available to protesters, rather than all defendants in criminal damage cases. Tim Crosland, a former barrister and the director of environmental campaign group Plan B, said this was blatantly discriminatory. C said the Crown Prosecution Service had tried to have the consent defence removed from her in legal argument before the trial. But the trial judge rejected the CPS motion. “They spent some time arguing this, but this was thrown out by the judge and I was allowed to use the defence,” C said. “They lost then, and it looks like they are trying to have another go. It feels like another attack on the democratic right of a defendant to have a jury decide its verdict. “It is a way to undermine my not guilty verdict, but it is worse because if they win the defence will be taken away for every climate defendant after me. “They are spending taxpayers’ money trying to undermine the jury and they are using this as a way to deny any last remaining defence to climate protesters.” Last year, restrictions were imposed on environmental protesters during trials that forbade them from mentioning climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement to explain their motivation for their actions to a jury. Several defendants who defied the rules were jailed for contempt of court as a result. Last month, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders condemned the the use of “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions to crack down on climate protesters in Britain. Michel Forst said as the world faced a triple planetary crisis of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected. C said she was upset that her case was being taken to the appeal court in this way, adding: “I don’t have a voice in this at all.” She said it came after “regressive” new laws under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023 curbed the right to protest. Both pieces of legislation were also condemned by the UN rapporteur. Prentis said she decided to go to the court of appeal after seeing a number of climate activists acquitted of criminal damage last year. “I have made this reference as it is important that the law is clear and fairly applied. I look forward to the court of appeal considering this issue, and would like to emphasise that regardless of the outcome of this reference, it cannot affect those who have been acquitted through the usual trial process,” she said. In her skeleton argument submitted to the court, Prentis said: “C’s evidence … was evidence which need not have been given at all.” The attorney general said the trial judged had erred in law by allowing the issue of belief in consent as an issue to be left to the jury. It is not the first time the Conservative government’s senior law officer has turned to the court of appeal to express unhappiness at a jury acquittal for criminal damage. Suella Braverman, when attorney general referred a point of law after four people were cleared over the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. The court of appeal ruled in her favour, removing the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision has since been used to stop climate activists from using the same defence – that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference the right to protest under the European convention of human rights – for other lesser offences including public nuisance. Explore more on these topics Climate crisis UK criminal justice Protest UK civil liberties features Share Reuse this content T he woman at the centre of an attempt by the government’s senior law officer to remove one of the last remaining legal defences available to climate protesters says the move is an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. But the attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is taking her case to the court of appeal on Wednesday to argue the defence used at the trial should no longer be available to climate activists. The action follows a series of high-profile jury acquittals of climate protesters who spray-painted buildings of organisations and companies including HSBC. Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters Read more The attorney general cannot challenge a not guilty verdict made by a jury, but can go to the court of appeal on a point of law. Prentis will argue that the defence of lawful excuse used by the woman, who is known as C, should not be available for acts of protest. Under the “consent” defence, the defendant argues that they have a lawful excuse for their action because they honestly believe the organisation affected by the action would consent to the damage if it knew of the “destruction and damage and its circumstances”. C and other protesters have successfully argued to juries that the objects of their direct action would have consented if they had known more about the climate emergency. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Among the climate protesters who have successfully used the defence during the last year, nine were found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank, and several individuals were acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. Prentis has said she wants “clarity on the law as guidance for future cases” involving climate and environmental protesters. According to documents submitted to the court of appeal she is arguing specifically that the defence should not be available to protesters, rather than all defendants in criminal damage cases. Tim Crosland, a former barrister and the director of environmental campaign group Plan B, said this was blatantly discriminatory. C said the Crown Prosecution Service had tried to have the consent defence removed from her in legal argument before the trial. But the trial judge rejected the CPS motion. “They spent some time arguing this, but this was thrown out by the judge and I was allowed to use the defence,” C said. “They lost then, and it looks like they are trying to have another go. It feels like another attack on the democratic right of a defendant to have a jury decide its verdict. “It is a way to undermine my not guilty verdict, but it is worse because if they win the defence will be taken away for every climate defendant after me. “They are spending taxpayers’ money trying to undermine the jury and they are using this as a way to deny any last remaining defence to climate protesters.” Last year, restrictions were imposed on environmental protesters during trials that forbade them from mentioning climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement to explain their motivation for their actions to a jury. Several defendants who defied the rules were jailed for contempt of court as a result. Last month, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders condemned the the use of “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions to crack down on climate protesters in Britain. Michel Forst said as the world faced a triple planetary crisis of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected. C said she was upset that her case was being taken to the appeal court in this way, adding: “I don’t have a voice in this at all.” She said it came after “regressive” new laws under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023 curbed the right to protest. Both pieces of legislation were also condemned by the UN rapporteur. Prentis said she decided to go to the court of appeal after seeing a number of climate activists acquitted of criminal damage last year. “I have made this reference as it is important that the law is clear and fairly applied. I look forward to the court of appeal considering this issue, and would like to emphasise that regardless of the outcome of this reference, it cannot affect those who have been acquitted through the usual trial process,” she said. In her skeleton argument submitted to the court, Prentis said: “C’s evidence … was evidence which need not have been given at all.” The attorney general said the trial judged had erred in law by allowing the issue of belief in consent as an issue to be left to the jury. It is not the first time the Conservative government’s senior law officer has turned to the court of appeal to express unhappiness at a jury acquittal for criminal damage. Suella Braverman, when attorney general referred a point of law after four people were cleared over the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. The court of appeal ruled in her favour, removing the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision has since been used to stop climate activists from using the same defence – that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference the right to protest under the European convention of human rights – for other lesser offences including public nuisance. Explore more on these topics Climate crisis UK criminal justice Protest UK civil liberties features Share Reuse this content T he woman at the centre of an attempt by the government’s senior law officer to remove one of the last remaining legal defences available to climate protesters says the move is an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. But the attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is taking her case to the court of appeal on Wednesday to argue the defence used at the trial should no longer be available to climate activists. The action follows a series of high-profile jury acquittals of climate protesters who spray-painted buildings of organisations and companies including HSBC. Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters Read more The attorney general cannot challenge a not guilty verdict made by a jury, but can go to the court of appeal on a point of law. Prentis will argue that the defence of lawful excuse used by the woman, who is known as C, should not be available for acts of protest. Under the “consent” defence, the defendant argues that they have a lawful excuse for their action because they honestly believe the organisation affected by the action would consent to the damage if it knew of the “destruction and damage and its circumstances”. C and other protesters have successfully argued to juries that the objects of their direct action would have consented if they had known more about the climate emergency. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Among the climate protesters who have successfully used the defence during the last year, nine were found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank, and several individuals were acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. Prentis has said she wants “clarity on the law as guidance for future cases” involving climate and environmental protesters. According to documents submitted to the court of appeal she is arguing specifically that the defence should not be available to protesters, rather than all defendants in criminal damage cases. Tim Crosland, a former barrister and the director of environmental campaign group Plan B, said this was blatantly discriminatory. C said the Crown Prosecution Service had tried to have the consent defence removed from her in legal argument before the trial. But the trial judge rejected the CPS motion. “They spent some time arguing this, but this was thrown out by the judge and I was allowed to use the defence,” C said. “They lost then, and it looks like they are trying to have another go. It feels like another attack on the democratic right of a defendant to have a jury decide its verdict. “It is a way to undermine my not guilty verdict, but it is worse because if they win the defence will be taken away for every climate defendant after me. “They are spending taxpayers’ money trying to undermine the jury and they are using this as a way to deny any last remaining defence to climate protesters.” Last year, restrictions were imposed on environmental protesters during trials that forbade them from mentioning climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement to explain their motivation for their actions to a jury. Several defendants who defied the rules were jailed for contempt of court as a result. Last month, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders condemned the the use of “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions to crack down on climate protesters in Britain. Michel Forst said as the world faced a triple planetary crisis of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected. C said she was upset that her case was being taken to the appeal court in this way, adding: “I don’t have a voice in this at all.” She said it came after “regressive” new laws under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023 curbed the right to protest. Both pieces of legislation were also condemned by the UN rapporteur. Prentis said she decided to go to the court of appeal after seeing a number of climate activists acquitted of criminal damage last year. “I have made this reference as it is important that the law is clear and fairly applied. I look forward to the court of appeal considering this issue, and would like to emphasise that regardless of the outcome of this reference, it cannot affect those who have been acquitted through the usual trial process,” she said. In her skeleton argument submitted to the court, Prentis said: “C’s evidence … was evidence which need not have been given at all.” The attorney general said the trial judged had erred in law by allowing the issue of belief in consent as an issue to be left to the jury. It is not the first time the Conservative government’s senior law officer has turned to the court of appeal to express unhappiness at a jury acquittal for criminal damage. Suella Braverman, when attorney general referred a point of law after four people were cleared over the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. The court of appeal ruled in her favour, removing the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision has since been used to stop climate activists from using the same defence – that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference the right to protest under the European convention of human rights – for other lesser offences including public nuisance. T he woman at the centre of an attempt by the government’s senior law officer to remove one of the last remaining legal defences available to climate protesters says the move is an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. But the attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is taking her case to the court of appeal on Wednesday to argue the defence used at the trial should no longer be available to climate activists. The action follows a series of high-profile jury acquittals of climate protesters who spray-painted buildings of organisations and companies including HSBC. Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters Read more The attorney general cannot challenge a not guilty verdict made by a jury, but can go to the court of appeal on a point of law. Prentis will argue that the defence of lawful excuse used by the woman, who is known as C, should not be available for acts of protest. Under the “consent” defence, the defendant argues that they have a lawful excuse for their action because they honestly believe the organisation affected by the action would consent to the damage if it knew of the “destruction and damage and its circumstances”. C and other protesters have successfully argued to juries that the objects of their direct action would have consented if they had known more about the climate emergency. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Among the climate protesters who have successfully used the defence during the last year, nine were found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank, and several individuals were acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. Prentis has said she wants “clarity on the law as guidance for future cases” involving climate and environmental protesters. According to documents submitted to the court of appeal she is arguing specifically that the defence should not be available to protesters, rather than all defendants in criminal damage cases. Tim Crosland, a former barrister and the director of environmental campaign group Plan B, said this was blatantly discriminatory. C said the Crown Prosecution Service had tried to have the consent defence removed from her in legal argument before the trial. But the trial judge rejected the CPS motion. “They spent some time arguing this, but this was thrown out by the judge and I was allowed to use the defence,” C said. “They lost then, and it looks like they are trying to have another go. It feels like another attack on the democratic right of a defendant to have a jury decide its verdict. “It is a way to undermine my not guilty verdict, but it is worse because if they win the defence will be taken away for every climate defendant after me. “They are spending taxpayers’ money trying to undermine the jury and they are using this as a way to deny any last remaining defence to climate protesters.” Last year, restrictions were imposed on environmental protesters during trials that forbade them from mentioning climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement to explain their motivation for their actions to a jury. Several defendants who defied the rules were jailed for contempt of court as a result. Last month, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders condemned the the use of “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions to crack down on climate protesters in Britain. Michel Forst said as the world faced a triple planetary crisis of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected. C said she was upset that her case was being taken to the appeal court in this way, adding: “I don’t have a voice in this at all.” She said it came after “regressive” new laws under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023 curbed the right to protest. Both pieces of legislation were also condemned by the UN rapporteur. Prentis said she decided to go to the court of appeal after seeing a number of climate activists acquitted of criminal damage last year. “I have made this reference as it is important that the law is clear and fairly applied. I look forward to the court of appeal considering this issue, and would like to emphasise that regardless of the outcome of this reference, it cannot affect those who have been acquitted through the usual trial process,” she said. In her skeleton argument submitted to the court, Prentis said: “C’s evidence … was evidence which need not have been given at all.” The attorney general said the trial judged had erred in law by allowing the issue of belief in consent as an issue to be left to the jury. It is not the first time the Conservative government’s senior law officer has turned to the court of appeal to express unhappiness at a jury acquittal for criminal damage. Suella Braverman, when attorney general referred a point of law after four people were cleared over the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. The court of appeal ruled in her favour, removing the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision has since been used to stop climate activists from using the same defence – that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference the right to protest under the European convention of human rights – for other lesser offences including public nuisance. T he woman at the centre of an attempt by the government’s senior law officer to remove one of the last remaining legal defences available to climate protesters says the move is an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. But the attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is taking her case to the court of appeal on Wednesday to argue the defence used at the trial should no longer be available to climate activists. The action follows a series of high-profile jury acquittals of climate protesters who spray-painted buildings of organisations and companies including HSBC. Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters Read more Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters Read more Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters Read more Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters Five examples of the UK’s crackdown on climate protesters The attorney general cannot challenge a not guilty verdict made by a jury, but can go to the court of appeal on a point of law. Prentis will argue that the defence of lawful excuse used by the woman, who is known as C, should not be available for acts of protest. Under the “consent” defence, the defendant argues that they have a lawful excuse for their action because they honestly believe the organisation affected by the action would consent to the damage if it knew of the “destruction and damage and its circumstances”. C and other protesters have successfully argued to juries that the objects of their direct action would have consented if they had known more about the climate emergency. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Among the climate protesters who have successfully used the defence during the last year, nine were found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank, and several individuals were acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. Prentis has said she wants “clarity on the law as guidance for future cases” involving climate and environmental protesters. According to documents submitted to the court of appeal she is arguing specifically that the defence should not be available to protesters, rather than all defendants in criminal damage cases. Tim Crosland, a former barrister and the director of environmental campaign group Plan B, said this was blatantly discriminatory. C said the Crown Prosecution Service had tried to have the consent defence removed from her in legal argument before the trial. But the trial judge rejected the CPS motion. “They spent some time arguing this, but this was thrown out by the judge and I was allowed to use the defence,” C said. “They lost then, and it looks like they are trying to have another go. It feels like another attack on the democratic right of a defendant to have a jury decide its verdict. “It is a way to undermine my not guilty verdict, but it is worse because if they win the defence will be taken away for every climate defendant after me. “They are spending taxpayers’ money trying to undermine the jury and they are using this as a way to deny any last remaining defence to climate protesters.” Last year, restrictions were imposed on environmental protesters during trials that forbade them from mentioning climate change, fuel poverty or the civil rights movement to explain their motivation for their actions to a jury. Several defendants who defied the rules were jailed for contempt of court as a result. Last month, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders condemned the the use of “draconian” new laws, excessive restrictions on courtroom evidence and the use of civil injunctions to crack down on climate protesters in Britain. Michel Forst said as the world faced a triple planetary crisis of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss and pollution, environmental protesters were acting for the “benefit of us all” and must be protected. C said she was upset that her case was being taken to the appeal court in this way, adding: “I don’t have a voice in this at all.” She said it came after “regressive” new laws under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023 curbed the right to protest. Both pieces of legislation were also condemned by the UN rapporteur. Prentis said she decided to go to the court of appeal after seeing a number of climate activists acquitted of criminal damage last year. “I have made this reference as it is important that the law is clear and fairly applied. I look forward to the court of appeal considering this issue, and would like to emphasise that regardless of the outcome of this reference, it cannot affect those who have been acquitted through the usual trial process,” she said. In her skeleton argument submitted to the court, Prentis said: “C’s evidence … was evidence which need not have been given at all.” The attorney general said the trial judged had erred in law by allowing the issue of belief in consent as an issue to be left to the jury. It is not the first time the Conservative government’s senior law officer has turned to the court of appeal to express unhappiness at a jury acquittal for criminal damage. Suella Braverman, when attorney general referred a point of law after four people were cleared over the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. The court of appeal ruled in her favour, removing the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision has since been used to stop climate activists from using the same defence – that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference the right to protest under the European convention of human rights – for other lesser offences including public nuisance. Explore more on these topics Climate crisis UK criminal justice Protest UK civil liberties features Share Reuse this content Climate crisis UK criminal justice Protest UK civil liberties features |
I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference
Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA This article is more than 1 year old I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference This article is more than 1 year old Sunak becomes first PM to address conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, as Tories court farming sector Rishi Sunak has told farmers: “I have your back” at the National Farmers Union conference, as he promised to “change the culture” in government around farming. Sunak was the first prime minister to address the NFU conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, and had brought three Defra ministers with him to put the Conservative case to farmers. Farmers say recent flooding that has hit the UK could lead to a significant hit on food production. Sunak committed to improving food security in the UK and expressed concerns about low self-sufficiency in “things like tomatoes, pears, plums, lettuces and apples”. Sunak also said he had “once milked a cow”. He took two questions from the audience. Replying to one farmer, Hannah, from Hertfordshire, he admitted that allowing farmers to trade with the EU was a “work in progress”. He said: “We are working very hard with individual countries to ease all those areas in which there are differences. I’ll be totally honest, it’s a work in progress.” ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers Read more Farmers have been critical of trade deals undercutting their business, including the free trade deal with Australia and the prospect of importing Canadian pork and Mexican beef . Sunak said: “We are absolutely committed to supporting you and making sure that you are not undercut.” He expressed sympathy for those who had been affected by recent floods that had wiped out thousands of acres of crops. “It’s always devastating when that happens,” he said. Later, David Eudall, economics and analysis director at the Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board, told the conference that the rain would cause huge problems. “In previous years when we’ve seen this [level of rainfall], like 2019-20 when we had a very similar wet period through the autumn and winter for planting, we saw a 24% reduction in the planted area. Considering we’re in a similar area and have similar weather pattern we’d expect we’re going to see a similar magnitude of scale.” The Environment Agency chair, Alan Lovell, faced an angry reception from farmers who said the EA had worsened the flooding situation. He responded: “I take issue with the idea that water comes from the EA: water comes from above.” He also revealed a new inspections regime for sewage works, to restore checks to their level in 2010, before cuts by the Conservative party. Recent polling from the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. More respondents in the poll believe Labour understands and respects rural communities and the rural way of life than the Conservatives (28% v 25%). The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats but face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Minette Batters, leading her last NFU conference as president, said the farming vote was still up for grabs and asked for Brexit-related labour problems to be solved. “Which party will introduce a minimum five-years seasonal workers scheme and recognise that we need more people if we’re to continue providing the raw ingredients for the country’s largest manufacturing sector?” she asked. “Which party will formally commit to sourcing more food from British farms? For our schools, hospitals, our military?” Batters alluded to protests in Wales, where farmers have been blockading roads with their tractors over plans to force them to plant 10% of their land with trees. She said: “I have watched and listened as the Welsh government try and deny our members and their children the farming futures they had planned.” The next big battle for the NFU is against the supermarkets, which they accuse of intimidating farmers and striking unfair deals, which cause them to go out of business. Batters said: “There are still many of our members who will not raise a complaint for fear of being delisted by supermarkets. Conference, this is wrong. It’s unfair, and totally unacceptable. In my last address as NFU president, I have a message to all food retailers and, most importantly, to their shareholders. You have a duty to your farmers and growers. They have a right to earn a fair price. For what they produce for you to sell. This means the culture at the top of food retail has to change. Right now, the badge of honour sits with an often ruthless buyer for negotiating the hardest deal [with] suppliers. Retailers should find them more than that. “That badge of honour needs to be worn by responsible board members who recognise the importance of long-term supplier relationships. But it’s really that we need a blueprint for action. My suggestion is that the Groceries Code Adjudicator survey of supplies is used to create a new framework. This would embed retailers’ ethical responsibilities to farmers and growers within their businesses, environmental sustainability goals and corporate social responsibility.” Explore more on these topics Farming Rural affairs Rishi Sunak Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA This article is more than 1 year old I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference This article is more than 1 year old Sunak becomes first PM to address conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, as Tories court farming sector Rishi Sunak has told farmers: “I have your back” at the National Farmers Union conference, as he promised to “change the culture” in government around farming. Sunak was the first prime minister to address the NFU conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, and had brought three Defra ministers with him to put the Conservative case to farmers. Farmers say recent flooding that has hit the UK could lead to a significant hit on food production. Sunak committed to improving food security in the UK and expressed concerns about low self-sufficiency in “things like tomatoes, pears, plums, lettuces and apples”. Sunak also said he had “once milked a cow”. He took two questions from the audience. Replying to one farmer, Hannah, from Hertfordshire, he admitted that allowing farmers to trade with the EU was a “work in progress”. He said: “We are working very hard with individual countries to ease all those areas in which there are differences. I’ll be totally honest, it’s a work in progress.” ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers Read more Farmers have been critical of trade deals undercutting their business, including the free trade deal with Australia and the prospect of importing Canadian pork and Mexican beef . Sunak said: “We are absolutely committed to supporting you and making sure that you are not undercut.” He expressed sympathy for those who had been affected by recent floods that had wiped out thousands of acres of crops. “It’s always devastating when that happens,” he said. Later, David Eudall, economics and analysis director at the Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board, told the conference that the rain would cause huge problems. “In previous years when we’ve seen this [level of rainfall], like 2019-20 when we had a very similar wet period through the autumn and winter for planting, we saw a 24% reduction in the planted area. Considering we’re in a similar area and have similar weather pattern we’d expect we’re going to see a similar magnitude of scale.” The Environment Agency chair, Alan Lovell, faced an angry reception from farmers who said the EA had worsened the flooding situation. He responded: “I take issue with the idea that water comes from the EA: water comes from above.” He also revealed a new inspections regime for sewage works, to restore checks to their level in 2010, before cuts by the Conservative party. Recent polling from the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. More respondents in the poll believe Labour understands and respects rural communities and the rural way of life than the Conservatives (28% v 25%). The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats but face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Minette Batters, leading her last NFU conference as president, said the farming vote was still up for grabs and asked for Brexit-related labour problems to be solved. “Which party will introduce a minimum five-years seasonal workers scheme and recognise that we need more people if we’re to continue providing the raw ingredients for the country’s largest manufacturing sector?” she asked. “Which party will formally commit to sourcing more food from British farms? For our schools, hospitals, our military?” Batters alluded to protests in Wales, where farmers have been blockading roads with their tractors over plans to force them to plant 10% of their land with trees. She said: “I have watched and listened as the Welsh government try and deny our members and their children the farming futures they had planned.” The next big battle for the NFU is against the supermarkets, which they accuse of intimidating farmers and striking unfair deals, which cause them to go out of business. Batters said: “There are still many of our members who will not raise a complaint for fear of being delisted by supermarkets. Conference, this is wrong. It’s unfair, and totally unacceptable. In my last address as NFU president, I have a message to all food retailers and, most importantly, to their shareholders. You have a duty to your farmers and growers. They have a right to earn a fair price. For what they produce for you to sell. This means the culture at the top of food retail has to change. Right now, the badge of honour sits with an often ruthless buyer for negotiating the hardest deal [with] suppliers. Retailers should find them more than that. “That badge of honour needs to be worn by responsible board members who recognise the importance of long-term supplier relationships. But it’s really that we need a blueprint for action. My suggestion is that the Groceries Code Adjudicator survey of supplies is used to create a new framework. This would embed retailers’ ethical responsibilities to farmers and growers within their businesses, environmental sustainability goals and corporate social responsibility.” Explore more on these topics Farming Rural affairs Rishi Sunak Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA Rishi Sunak at the NFU annual conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Jacob King/PA This article is more than 1 year old I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sunak becomes first PM to address conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, as Tories court farming sector Sunak becomes first PM to address conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, as Tories court farming sector Sunak becomes first PM to address conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, as Tories court farming sector Rishi Sunak has told farmers: “I have your back” at the National Farmers Union conference, as he promised to “change the culture” in government around farming. Sunak was the first prime minister to address the NFU conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, and had brought three Defra ministers with him to put the Conservative case to farmers. Farmers say recent flooding that has hit the UK could lead to a significant hit on food production. Sunak committed to improving food security in the UK and expressed concerns about low self-sufficiency in “things like tomatoes, pears, plums, lettuces and apples”. Sunak also said he had “once milked a cow”. He took two questions from the audience. Replying to one farmer, Hannah, from Hertfordshire, he admitted that allowing farmers to trade with the EU was a “work in progress”. He said: “We are working very hard with individual countries to ease all those areas in which there are differences. I’ll be totally honest, it’s a work in progress.” ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers Read more Farmers have been critical of trade deals undercutting their business, including the free trade deal with Australia and the prospect of importing Canadian pork and Mexican beef . Sunak said: “We are absolutely committed to supporting you and making sure that you are not undercut.” He expressed sympathy for those who had been affected by recent floods that had wiped out thousands of acres of crops. “It’s always devastating when that happens,” he said. Later, David Eudall, economics and analysis director at the Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board, told the conference that the rain would cause huge problems. “In previous years when we’ve seen this [level of rainfall], like 2019-20 when we had a very similar wet period through the autumn and winter for planting, we saw a 24% reduction in the planted area. Considering we’re in a similar area and have similar weather pattern we’d expect we’re going to see a similar magnitude of scale.” The Environment Agency chair, Alan Lovell, faced an angry reception from farmers who said the EA had worsened the flooding situation. He responded: “I take issue with the idea that water comes from the EA: water comes from above.” He also revealed a new inspections regime for sewage works, to restore checks to their level in 2010, before cuts by the Conservative party. Recent polling from the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. More respondents in the poll believe Labour understands and respects rural communities and the rural way of life than the Conservatives (28% v 25%). The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats but face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Minette Batters, leading her last NFU conference as president, said the farming vote was still up for grabs and asked for Brexit-related labour problems to be solved. “Which party will introduce a minimum five-years seasonal workers scheme and recognise that we need more people if we’re to continue providing the raw ingredients for the country’s largest manufacturing sector?” she asked. “Which party will formally commit to sourcing more food from British farms? For our schools, hospitals, our military?” Batters alluded to protests in Wales, where farmers have been blockading roads with their tractors over plans to force them to plant 10% of their land with trees. She said: “I have watched and listened as the Welsh government try and deny our members and their children the farming futures they had planned.” The next big battle for the NFU is against the supermarkets, which they accuse of intimidating farmers and striking unfair deals, which cause them to go out of business. Batters said: “There are still many of our members who will not raise a complaint for fear of being delisted by supermarkets. Conference, this is wrong. It’s unfair, and totally unacceptable. In my last address as NFU president, I have a message to all food retailers and, most importantly, to their shareholders. You have a duty to your farmers and growers. They have a right to earn a fair price. For what they produce for you to sell. This means the culture at the top of food retail has to change. Right now, the badge of honour sits with an often ruthless buyer for negotiating the hardest deal [with] suppliers. Retailers should find them more than that. “That badge of honour needs to be worn by responsible board members who recognise the importance of long-term supplier relationships. But it’s really that we need a blueprint for action. My suggestion is that the Groceries Code Adjudicator survey of supplies is used to create a new framework. This would embed retailers’ ethical responsibilities to farmers and growers within their businesses, environmental sustainability goals and corporate social responsibility.” Explore more on these topics Farming Rural affairs Rishi Sunak Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak has told farmers: “I have your back” at the National Farmers Union conference, as he promised to “change the culture” in government around farming. Sunak was the first prime minister to address the NFU conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, and had brought three Defra ministers with him to put the Conservative case to farmers. Farmers say recent flooding that has hit the UK could lead to a significant hit on food production. Sunak committed to improving food security in the UK and expressed concerns about low self-sufficiency in “things like tomatoes, pears, plums, lettuces and apples”. Sunak also said he had “once milked a cow”. He took two questions from the audience. Replying to one farmer, Hannah, from Hertfordshire, he admitted that allowing farmers to trade with the EU was a “work in progress”. He said: “We are working very hard with individual countries to ease all those areas in which there are differences. I’ll be totally honest, it’s a work in progress.” ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers Read more Farmers have been critical of trade deals undercutting their business, including the free trade deal with Australia and the prospect of importing Canadian pork and Mexican beef . Sunak said: “We are absolutely committed to supporting you and making sure that you are not undercut.” He expressed sympathy for those who had been affected by recent floods that had wiped out thousands of acres of crops. “It’s always devastating when that happens,” he said. Later, David Eudall, economics and analysis director at the Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board, told the conference that the rain would cause huge problems. “In previous years when we’ve seen this [level of rainfall], like 2019-20 when we had a very similar wet period through the autumn and winter for planting, we saw a 24% reduction in the planted area. Considering we’re in a similar area and have similar weather pattern we’d expect we’re going to see a similar magnitude of scale.” The Environment Agency chair, Alan Lovell, faced an angry reception from farmers who said the EA had worsened the flooding situation. He responded: “I take issue with the idea that water comes from the EA: water comes from above.” He also revealed a new inspections regime for sewage works, to restore checks to their level in 2010, before cuts by the Conservative party. Recent polling from the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. More respondents in the poll believe Labour understands and respects rural communities and the rural way of life than the Conservatives (28% v 25%). The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats but face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Minette Batters, leading her last NFU conference as president, said the farming vote was still up for grabs and asked for Brexit-related labour problems to be solved. “Which party will introduce a minimum five-years seasonal workers scheme and recognise that we need more people if we’re to continue providing the raw ingredients for the country’s largest manufacturing sector?” she asked. “Which party will formally commit to sourcing more food from British farms? For our schools, hospitals, our military?” Batters alluded to protests in Wales, where farmers have been blockading roads with their tractors over plans to force them to plant 10% of their land with trees. She said: “I have watched and listened as the Welsh government try and deny our members and their children the farming futures they had planned.” The next big battle for the NFU is against the supermarkets, which they accuse of intimidating farmers and striking unfair deals, which cause them to go out of business. Batters said: “There are still many of our members who will not raise a complaint for fear of being delisted by supermarkets. Conference, this is wrong. It’s unfair, and totally unacceptable. In my last address as NFU president, I have a message to all food retailers and, most importantly, to their shareholders. You have a duty to your farmers and growers. They have a right to earn a fair price. For what they produce for you to sell. This means the culture at the top of food retail has to change. Right now, the badge of honour sits with an often ruthless buyer for negotiating the hardest deal [with] suppliers. Retailers should find them more than that. “That badge of honour needs to be worn by responsible board members who recognise the importance of long-term supplier relationships. But it’s really that we need a blueprint for action. My suggestion is that the Groceries Code Adjudicator survey of supplies is used to create a new framework. This would embed retailers’ ethical responsibilities to farmers and growers within their businesses, environmental sustainability goals and corporate social responsibility.” Explore more on these topics Farming Rural affairs Rishi Sunak Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak has told farmers: “I have your back” at the National Farmers Union conference, as he promised to “change the culture” in government around farming. Sunak was the first prime minister to address the NFU conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, and had brought three Defra ministers with him to put the Conservative case to farmers. Farmers say recent flooding that has hit the UK could lead to a significant hit on food production. Sunak committed to improving food security in the UK and expressed concerns about low self-sufficiency in “things like tomatoes, pears, plums, lettuces and apples”. Sunak also said he had “once milked a cow”. He took two questions from the audience. Replying to one farmer, Hannah, from Hertfordshire, he admitted that allowing farmers to trade with the EU was a “work in progress”. He said: “We are working very hard with individual countries to ease all those areas in which there are differences. I’ll be totally honest, it’s a work in progress.” ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers Read more Farmers have been critical of trade deals undercutting their business, including the free trade deal with Australia and the prospect of importing Canadian pork and Mexican beef . Sunak said: “We are absolutely committed to supporting you and making sure that you are not undercut.” He expressed sympathy for those who had been affected by recent floods that had wiped out thousands of acres of crops. “It’s always devastating when that happens,” he said. Later, David Eudall, economics and analysis director at the Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board, told the conference that the rain would cause huge problems. “In previous years when we’ve seen this [level of rainfall], like 2019-20 when we had a very similar wet period through the autumn and winter for planting, we saw a 24% reduction in the planted area. Considering we’re in a similar area and have similar weather pattern we’d expect we’re going to see a similar magnitude of scale.” The Environment Agency chair, Alan Lovell, faced an angry reception from farmers who said the EA had worsened the flooding situation. He responded: “I take issue with the idea that water comes from the EA: water comes from above.” He also revealed a new inspections regime for sewage works, to restore checks to their level in 2010, before cuts by the Conservative party. Recent polling from the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. More respondents in the poll believe Labour understands and respects rural communities and the rural way of life than the Conservatives (28% v 25%). The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats but face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Minette Batters, leading her last NFU conference as president, said the farming vote was still up for grabs and asked for Brexit-related labour problems to be solved. “Which party will introduce a minimum five-years seasonal workers scheme and recognise that we need more people if we’re to continue providing the raw ingredients for the country’s largest manufacturing sector?” she asked. “Which party will formally commit to sourcing more food from British farms? For our schools, hospitals, our military?” Batters alluded to protests in Wales, where farmers have been blockading roads with their tractors over plans to force them to plant 10% of their land with trees. She said: “I have watched and listened as the Welsh government try and deny our members and their children the farming futures they had planned.” The next big battle for the NFU is against the supermarkets, which they accuse of intimidating farmers and striking unfair deals, which cause them to go out of business. Batters said: “There are still many of our members who will not raise a complaint for fear of being delisted by supermarkets. Conference, this is wrong. It’s unfair, and totally unacceptable. In my last address as NFU president, I have a message to all food retailers and, most importantly, to their shareholders. You have a duty to your farmers and growers. They have a right to earn a fair price. For what they produce for you to sell. This means the culture at the top of food retail has to change. Right now, the badge of honour sits with an often ruthless buyer for negotiating the hardest deal [with] suppliers. Retailers should find them more than that. “That badge of honour needs to be worn by responsible board members who recognise the importance of long-term supplier relationships. But it’s really that we need a blueprint for action. My suggestion is that the Groceries Code Adjudicator survey of supplies is used to create a new framework. This would embed retailers’ ethical responsibilities to farmers and growers within their businesses, environmental sustainability goals and corporate social responsibility.” Rishi Sunak has told farmers: “I have your back” at the National Farmers Union conference, as he promised to “change the culture” in government around farming. Sunak was the first prime minister to address the NFU conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, and had brought three Defra ministers with him to put the Conservative case to farmers. Farmers say recent flooding that has hit the UK could lead to a significant hit on food production. Sunak committed to improving food security in the UK and expressed concerns about low self-sufficiency in “things like tomatoes, pears, plums, lettuces and apples”. Sunak also said he had “once milked a cow”. He took two questions from the audience. Replying to one farmer, Hannah, from Hertfordshire, he admitted that allowing farmers to trade with the EU was a “work in progress”. He said: “We are working very hard with individual countries to ease all those areas in which there are differences. I’ll be totally honest, it’s a work in progress.” ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers Read more Farmers have been critical of trade deals undercutting their business, including the free trade deal with Australia and the prospect of importing Canadian pork and Mexican beef . Sunak said: “We are absolutely committed to supporting you and making sure that you are not undercut.” He expressed sympathy for those who had been affected by recent floods that had wiped out thousands of acres of crops. “It’s always devastating when that happens,” he said. Later, David Eudall, economics and analysis director at the Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board, told the conference that the rain would cause huge problems. “In previous years when we’ve seen this [level of rainfall], like 2019-20 when we had a very similar wet period through the autumn and winter for planting, we saw a 24% reduction in the planted area. Considering we’re in a similar area and have similar weather pattern we’d expect we’re going to see a similar magnitude of scale.” The Environment Agency chair, Alan Lovell, faced an angry reception from farmers who said the EA had worsened the flooding situation. He responded: “I take issue with the idea that water comes from the EA: water comes from above.” He also revealed a new inspections regime for sewage works, to restore checks to their level in 2010, before cuts by the Conservative party. Recent polling from the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. More respondents in the poll believe Labour understands and respects rural communities and the rural way of life than the Conservatives (28% v 25%). The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats but face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Minette Batters, leading her last NFU conference as president, said the farming vote was still up for grabs and asked for Brexit-related labour problems to be solved. “Which party will introduce a minimum five-years seasonal workers scheme and recognise that we need more people if we’re to continue providing the raw ingredients for the country’s largest manufacturing sector?” she asked. “Which party will formally commit to sourcing more food from British farms? For our schools, hospitals, our military?” Batters alluded to protests in Wales, where farmers have been blockading roads with their tractors over plans to force them to plant 10% of their land with trees. She said: “I have watched and listened as the Welsh government try and deny our members and their children the farming futures they had planned.” The next big battle for the NFU is against the supermarkets, which they accuse of intimidating farmers and striking unfair deals, which cause them to go out of business. Batters said: “There are still many of our members who will not raise a complaint for fear of being delisted by supermarkets. Conference, this is wrong. It’s unfair, and totally unacceptable. In my last address as NFU president, I have a message to all food retailers and, most importantly, to their shareholders. You have a duty to your farmers and growers. They have a right to earn a fair price. For what they produce for you to sell. This means the culture at the top of food retail has to change. Right now, the badge of honour sits with an often ruthless buyer for negotiating the hardest deal [with] suppliers. Retailers should find them more than that. “That badge of honour needs to be worn by responsible board members who recognise the importance of long-term supplier relationships. But it’s really that we need a blueprint for action. My suggestion is that the Groceries Code Adjudicator survey of supplies is used to create a new framework. This would embed retailers’ ethical responsibilities to farmers and growers within their businesses, environmental sustainability goals and corporate social responsibility.” Rishi Sunak has told farmers: “I have your back” at the National Farmers Union conference, as he promised to “change the culture” in government around farming. Sunak was the first prime minister to address the NFU conference since Gordon Brown in 2008, and had brought three Defra ministers with him to put the Conservative case to farmers. Farmers say recent flooding that has hit the UK could lead to a significant hit on food production. Sunak committed to improving food security in the UK and expressed concerns about low self-sufficiency in “things like tomatoes, pears, plums, lettuces and apples”. Sunak also said he had “once milked a cow”. He took two questions from the audience. Replying to one farmer, Hannah, from Hertfordshire, he admitted that allowing farmers to trade with the EU was a “work in progress”. He said: “We are working very hard with individual countries to ease all those areas in which there are differences. I’ll be totally honest, it’s a work in progress.” ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers Read more ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers Read more ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers Read more ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers Farmers have been critical of trade deals undercutting their business, including the free trade deal with Australia and the prospect of importing Canadian pork and Mexican beef . Sunak said: “We are absolutely committed to supporting you and making sure that you are not undercut.” He expressed sympathy for those who had been affected by recent floods that had wiped out thousands of acres of crops. “It’s always devastating when that happens,” he said. Later, David Eudall, economics and analysis director at the Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board, told the conference that the rain would cause huge problems. “In previous years when we’ve seen this [level of rainfall], like 2019-20 when we had a very similar wet period through the autumn and winter for planting, we saw a 24% reduction in the planted area. Considering we’re in a similar area and have similar weather pattern we’d expect we’re going to see a similar magnitude of scale.” The Environment Agency chair, Alan Lovell, faced an angry reception from farmers who said the EA had worsened the flooding situation. He responded: “I take issue with the idea that water comes from the EA: water comes from above.” He also revealed a new inspections regime for sewage works, to restore checks to their level in 2010, before cuts by the Conservative party. Recent polling from the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. More respondents in the poll believe Labour understands and respects rural communities and the rural way of life than the Conservatives (28% v 25%). The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats but face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. Minette Batters, leading her last NFU conference as president, said the farming vote was still up for grabs and asked for Brexit-related labour problems to be solved. “Which party will introduce a minimum five-years seasonal workers scheme and recognise that we need more people if we’re to continue providing the raw ingredients for the country’s largest manufacturing sector?” she asked. “Which party will formally commit to sourcing more food from British farms? For our schools, hospitals, our military?” Batters alluded to protests in Wales, where farmers have been blockading roads with their tractors over plans to force them to plant 10% of their land with trees. She said: “I have watched and listened as the Welsh government try and deny our members and their children the farming futures they had planned.” The next big battle for the NFU is against the supermarkets, which they accuse of intimidating farmers and striking unfair deals, which cause them to go out of business. Batters said: “There are still many of our members who will not raise a complaint for fear of being delisted by supermarkets. Conference, this is wrong. It’s unfair, and totally unacceptable. In my last address as NFU president, I have a message to all food retailers and, most importantly, to their shareholders. You have a duty to your farmers and growers. They have a right to earn a fair price. For what they produce for you to sell. This means the culture at the top of food retail has to change. Right now, the badge of honour sits with an often ruthless buyer for negotiating the hardest deal [with] suppliers. Retailers should find them more than that. “That badge of honour needs to be worn by responsible board members who recognise the importance of long-term supplier relationships. But it’s really that we need a blueprint for action. My suggestion is that the Groceries Code Adjudicator survey of supplies is used to create a new framework. This would embed retailers’ ethical responsibilities to farmers and growers within their businesses, environmental sustainability goals and corporate social responsibility.” Explore more on these topics Farming Rural affairs Rishi Sunak Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Farming Rural affairs Rishi Sunak Conservatives news |
Jon Stewart on Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin: ‘An ally to the right’
Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube This article is more than 1 year old Jon Stewart on Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin: ‘An ally to the right’ This article is more than 1 year old Daily Show host tears into ex-Fox News personality’s interview with Putin and defends his own criticism of Biden’s age W hile other late-night hosts were off for Presidents’ Day, Jon Stewart once again resumed his chair at the Daily Show to defend his monologue about Joe Biden’s age and talk Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show Read more The Daily Show Jon Stewart opened his monologue on The Daily Show, his second since returning on Mondays through the election, to defend his first, in which he expressed voter concerns over Joe Biden’s age and mental fitness for office. The bit drew heated criticism from some Democrats, such as the former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann , who called him a “bothsidesist fraud” on X, formerly Twitter. “But that was on Twitter, everything on Twitter gets a backlash,” said Stewart. “I’ve seen Twitter tell Labradoodles to go fuck themselves. “I just think it’s better to deal head-on with what’s an apparent issue to people,” he added. “I guess as the famous saying goes – democracy dies in discussion,” he joked. “I have sinned against you. I’m sorry. It was never my intention to say out loud what I saw with my eyes and then brain. I can do better. I can have learning!” Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Read more Stewart then transitioned to his main segment of the night, on the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s interview with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, offering a lesson in “world-class fealty to power”. Step one: “lie about what your job is” – not journalism, as Carlson claimed – and what your duty is (not to inform people, either). As Carlson claimed: “Freedom of speech is our birthright. We were born with the right to say what we believe.” “Ah, disguise your deception and capitulation to power as noble and moral and based in freedom,” Stewart noted. In the on-location report from Moscow , Carlson praised the city’s art deco subway stations and the efficiency of its grocery stores, reacting to fresh-baked bread with such enthusiasm that “I’d hate to think what would’ve happened if he had found a bagel,” said Stewart. And he spoke to Putin with a facial expression Stewart could only describe as a “mixture of shame, arousal and I’m gonna say irregularity – for instance, like you’re constipated while jerking off to a Sears catalog”. Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Read more Carlson claimed the experience of shopping for weekly groceries for $104 “radicalized” him against US leaders – “it will radicalize you, unless you understand basic economics”, Stewart corrected. “You see, $104 for groceries sounds like a great bargain, unless you realize that Russians earn less than $200 a week. “Here’s the reality: you fucking know all this, because you aren’t as dumb as your face would have us believe,” Stewart continued, addressing Carlson directly. “Perhaps if your handlers had allowed, you would’ve seen that there’s a hidden fee to your cheap groceries and orderly streets. Ask Alexei Navalny or any of his supporters.” In recent days, Russian state police have cracked down on pro-democracy protesters, arresting anyone who publicly mourned the opposition leader who mysteriously died in prison last week. “The difference between our urinal-caked, chaotic subways and your candelabra, beautiful subways is the literal price of freedom,” said Stewart. “But the goal that Carlson and his ilk are pushing is that there’s really no difference between our systems. In fact, theirs might be a little bit better. The question is why, why is Tucker doing this?” Stewart theorized that it’s because the old civilizational battle between communism and capitalism has shifted. “Now, they think the battle is ‘woke’ versus ‘unwoke’. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend,” he said. “Unfortunately, he is also a brutal and ruthless dictator. So now they have to make Americans a little more comfortable with that. I mean liberty is nice, but have you seen Russia’s shopping carts?” Explore more on these topics Late-night TV roundup Jon Stewart TV comedy Comedy Television features Share Reuse this content Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube This article is more than 1 year old Jon Stewart on Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin: ‘An ally to the right’ This article is more than 1 year old Daily Show host tears into ex-Fox News personality’s interview with Putin and defends his own criticism of Biden’s age W hile other late-night hosts were off for Presidents’ Day, Jon Stewart once again resumed his chair at the Daily Show to defend his monologue about Joe Biden’s age and talk Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show Read more The Daily Show Jon Stewart opened his monologue on The Daily Show, his second since returning on Mondays through the election, to defend his first, in which he expressed voter concerns over Joe Biden’s age and mental fitness for office. The bit drew heated criticism from some Democrats, such as the former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann , who called him a “bothsidesist fraud” on X, formerly Twitter. “But that was on Twitter, everything on Twitter gets a backlash,” said Stewart. “I’ve seen Twitter tell Labradoodles to go fuck themselves. “I just think it’s better to deal head-on with what’s an apparent issue to people,” he added. “I guess as the famous saying goes – democracy dies in discussion,” he joked. “I have sinned against you. I’m sorry. It was never my intention to say out loud what I saw with my eyes and then brain. I can do better. I can have learning!” Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Read more Stewart then transitioned to his main segment of the night, on the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s interview with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, offering a lesson in “world-class fealty to power”. Step one: “lie about what your job is” – not journalism, as Carlson claimed – and what your duty is (not to inform people, either). As Carlson claimed: “Freedom of speech is our birthright. We were born with the right to say what we believe.” “Ah, disguise your deception and capitulation to power as noble and moral and based in freedom,” Stewart noted. In the on-location report from Moscow , Carlson praised the city’s art deco subway stations and the efficiency of its grocery stores, reacting to fresh-baked bread with such enthusiasm that “I’d hate to think what would’ve happened if he had found a bagel,” said Stewart. And he spoke to Putin with a facial expression Stewart could only describe as a “mixture of shame, arousal and I’m gonna say irregularity – for instance, like you’re constipated while jerking off to a Sears catalog”. Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Read more Carlson claimed the experience of shopping for weekly groceries for $104 “radicalized” him against US leaders – “it will radicalize you, unless you understand basic economics”, Stewart corrected. “You see, $104 for groceries sounds like a great bargain, unless you realize that Russians earn less than $200 a week. “Here’s the reality: you fucking know all this, because you aren’t as dumb as your face would have us believe,” Stewart continued, addressing Carlson directly. “Perhaps if your handlers had allowed, you would’ve seen that there’s a hidden fee to your cheap groceries and orderly streets. Ask Alexei Navalny or any of his supporters.” In recent days, Russian state police have cracked down on pro-democracy protesters, arresting anyone who publicly mourned the opposition leader who mysteriously died in prison last week. “The difference between our urinal-caked, chaotic subways and your candelabra, beautiful subways is the literal price of freedom,” said Stewart. “But the goal that Carlson and his ilk are pushing is that there’s really no difference between our systems. In fact, theirs might be a little bit better. The question is why, why is Tucker doing this?” Stewart theorized that it’s because the old civilizational battle between communism and capitalism has shifted. “Now, they think the battle is ‘woke’ versus ‘unwoke’. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend,” he said. “Unfortunately, he is also a brutal and ruthless dictator. So now they have to make Americans a little more comfortable with that. I mean liberty is nice, but have you seen Russia’s shopping carts?” Explore more on these topics Late-night TV roundup Jon Stewart TV comedy Comedy Television features Share Reuse this content Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube Jon Stewart on Carlson’s fealty to Putin’s Russia: ‘They think the battle is “woke” versus “unwoke”. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend.’ Photograph: YouTube This article is more than 1 year old Jon Stewart on Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin: ‘An ally to the right’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Jon Stewart on Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin: ‘An ally to the right’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Jon Stewart on Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin: ‘An ally to the right’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Daily Show host tears into ex-Fox News personality’s interview with Putin and defends his own criticism of Biden’s age Daily Show host tears into ex-Fox News personality’s interview with Putin and defends his own criticism of Biden’s age Daily Show host tears into ex-Fox News personality’s interview with Putin and defends his own criticism of Biden’s age W hile other late-night hosts were off for Presidents’ Day, Jon Stewart once again resumed his chair at the Daily Show to defend his monologue about Joe Biden’s age and talk Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show Read more The Daily Show Jon Stewart opened his monologue on The Daily Show, his second since returning on Mondays through the election, to defend his first, in which he expressed voter concerns over Joe Biden’s age and mental fitness for office. The bit drew heated criticism from some Democrats, such as the former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann , who called him a “bothsidesist fraud” on X, formerly Twitter. “But that was on Twitter, everything on Twitter gets a backlash,” said Stewart. “I’ve seen Twitter tell Labradoodles to go fuck themselves. “I just think it’s better to deal head-on with what’s an apparent issue to people,” he added. “I guess as the famous saying goes – democracy dies in discussion,” he joked. “I have sinned against you. I’m sorry. It was never my intention to say out loud what I saw with my eyes and then brain. I can do better. I can have learning!” Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Read more Stewart then transitioned to his main segment of the night, on the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s interview with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, offering a lesson in “world-class fealty to power”. Step one: “lie about what your job is” – not journalism, as Carlson claimed – and what your duty is (not to inform people, either). As Carlson claimed: “Freedom of speech is our birthright. We were born with the right to say what we believe.” “Ah, disguise your deception and capitulation to power as noble and moral and based in freedom,” Stewart noted. In the on-location report from Moscow , Carlson praised the city’s art deco subway stations and the efficiency of its grocery stores, reacting to fresh-baked bread with such enthusiasm that “I’d hate to think what would’ve happened if he had found a bagel,” said Stewart. And he spoke to Putin with a facial expression Stewart could only describe as a “mixture of shame, arousal and I’m gonna say irregularity – for instance, like you’re constipated while jerking off to a Sears catalog”. Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Read more Carlson claimed the experience of shopping for weekly groceries for $104 “radicalized” him against US leaders – “it will radicalize you, unless you understand basic economics”, Stewart corrected. “You see, $104 for groceries sounds like a great bargain, unless you realize that Russians earn less than $200 a week. “Here’s the reality: you fucking know all this, because you aren’t as dumb as your face would have us believe,” Stewart continued, addressing Carlson directly. “Perhaps if your handlers had allowed, you would’ve seen that there’s a hidden fee to your cheap groceries and orderly streets. Ask Alexei Navalny or any of his supporters.” In recent days, Russian state police have cracked down on pro-democracy protesters, arresting anyone who publicly mourned the opposition leader who mysteriously died in prison last week. “The difference between our urinal-caked, chaotic subways and your candelabra, beautiful subways is the literal price of freedom,” said Stewart. “But the goal that Carlson and his ilk are pushing is that there’s really no difference between our systems. In fact, theirs might be a little bit better. The question is why, why is Tucker doing this?” Stewart theorized that it’s because the old civilizational battle between communism and capitalism has shifted. “Now, they think the battle is ‘woke’ versus ‘unwoke’. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend,” he said. “Unfortunately, he is also a brutal and ruthless dictator. So now they have to make Americans a little more comfortable with that. I mean liberty is nice, but have you seen Russia’s shopping carts?” Explore more on these topics Late-night TV roundup Jon Stewart TV comedy Comedy Television features Share Reuse this content W hile other late-night hosts were off for Presidents’ Day, Jon Stewart once again resumed his chair at the Daily Show to defend his monologue about Joe Biden’s age and talk Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show Read more The Daily Show Jon Stewart opened his monologue on The Daily Show, his second since returning on Mondays through the election, to defend his first, in which he expressed voter concerns over Joe Biden’s age and mental fitness for office. The bit drew heated criticism from some Democrats, such as the former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann , who called him a “bothsidesist fraud” on X, formerly Twitter. “But that was on Twitter, everything on Twitter gets a backlash,” said Stewart. “I’ve seen Twitter tell Labradoodles to go fuck themselves. “I just think it’s better to deal head-on with what’s an apparent issue to people,” he added. “I guess as the famous saying goes – democracy dies in discussion,” he joked. “I have sinned against you. I’m sorry. It was never my intention to say out loud what I saw with my eyes and then brain. I can do better. I can have learning!” Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Read more Stewart then transitioned to his main segment of the night, on the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s interview with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, offering a lesson in “world-class fealty to power”. Step one: “lie about what your job is” – not journalism, as Carlson claimed – and what your duty is (not to inform people, either). As Carlson claimed: “Freedom of speech is our birthright. We were born with the right to say what we believe.” “Ah, disguise your deception and capitulation to power as noble and moral and based in freedom,” Stewart noted. In the on-location report from Moscow , Carlson praised the city’s art deco subway stations and the efficiency of its grocery stores, reacting to fresh-baked bread with such enthusiasm that “I’d hate to think what would’ve happened if he had found a bagel,” said Stewart. And he spoke to Putin with a facial expression Stewart could only describe as a “mixture of shame, arousal and I’m gonna say irregularity – for instance, like you’re constipated while jerking off to a Sears catalog”. Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Read more Carlson claimed the experience of shopping for weekly groceries for $104 “radicalized” him against US leaders – “it will radicalize you, unless you understand basic economics”, Stewart corrected. “You see, $104 for groceries sounds like a great bargain, unless you realize that Russians earn less than $200 a week. “Here’s the reality: you fucking know all this, because you aren’t as dumb as your face would have us believe,” Stewart continued, addressing Carlson directly. “Perhaps if your handlers had allowed, you would’ve seen that there’s a hidden fee to your cheap groceries and orderly streets. Ask Alexei Navalny or any of his supporters.” In recent days, Russian state police have cracked down on pro-democracy protesters, arresting anyone who publicly mourned the opposition leader who mysteriously died in prison last week. “The difference between our urinal-caked, chaotic subways and your candelabra, beautiful subways is the literal price of freedom,” said Stewart. “But the goal that Carlson and his ilk are pushing is that there’s really no difference between our systems. In fact, theirs might be a little bit better. The question is why, why is Tucker doing this?” Stewart theorized that it’s because the old civilizational battle between communism and capitalism has shifted. “Now, they think the battle is ‘woke’ versus ‘unwoke’. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend,” he said. “Unfortunately, he is also a brutal and ruthless dictator. So now they have to make Americans a little more comfortable with that. I mean liberty is nice, but have you seen Russia’s shopping carts?” Explore more on these topics Late-night TV roundup Jon Stewart TV comedy Comedy Television features Share Reuse this content W hile other late-night hosts were off for Presidents’ Day, Jon Stewart once again resumed his chair at the Daily Show to defend his monologue about Joe Biden’s age and talk Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show Read more The Daily Show Jon Stewart opened his monologue on The Daily Show, his second since returning on Mondays through the election, to defend his first, in which he expressed voter concerns over Joe Biden’s age and mental fitness for office. The bit drew heated criticism from some Democrats, such as the former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann , who called him a “bothsidesist fraud” on X, formerly Twitter. “But that was on Twitter, everything on Twitter gets a backlash,” said Stewart. “I’ve seen Twitter tell Labradoodles to go fuck themselves. “I just think it’s better to deal head-on with what’s an apparent issue to people,” he added. “I guess as the famous saying goes – democracy dies in discussion,” he joked. “I have sinned against you. I’m sorry. It was never my intention to say out loud what I saw with my eyes and then brain. I can do better. I can have learning!” Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Read more Stewart then transitioned to his main segment of the night, on the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s interview with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, offering a lesson in “world-class fealty to power”. Step one: “lie about what your job is” – not journalism, as Carlson claimed – and what your duty is (not to inform people, either). As Carlson claimed: “Freedom of speech is our birthright. We were born with the right to say what we believe.” “Ah, disguise your deception and capitulation to power as noble and moral and based in freedom,” Stewart noted. In the on-location report from Moscow , Carlson praised the city’s art deco subway stations and the efficiency of its grocery stores, reacting to fresh-baked bread with such enthusiasm that “I’d hate to think what would’ve happened if he had found a bagel,” said Stewart. And he spoke to Putin with a facial expression Stewart could only describe as a “mixture of shame, arousal and I’m gonna say irregularity – for instance, like you’re constipated while jerking off to a Sears catalog”. Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Read more Carlson claimed the experience of shopping for weekly groceries for $104 “radicalized” him against US leaders – “it will radicalize you, unless you understand basic economics”, Stewart corrected. “You see, $104 for groceries sounds like a great bargain, unless you realize that Russians earn less than $200 a week. “Here’s the reality: you fucking know all this, because you aren’t as dumb as your face would have us believe,” Stewart continued, addressing Carlson directly. “Perhaps if your handlers had allowed, you would’ve seen that there’s a hidden fee to your cheap groceries and orderly streets. Ask Alexei Navalny or any of his supporters.” In recent days, Russian state police have cracked down on pro-democracy protesters, arresting anyone who publicly mourned the opposition leader who mysteriously died in prison last week. “The difference between our urinal-caked, chaotic subways and your candelabra, beautiful subways is the literal price of freedom,” said Stewart. “But the goal that Carlson and his ilk are pushing is that there’s really no difference between our systems. In fact, theirs might be a little bit better. The question is why, why is Tucker doing this?” Stewart theorized that it’s because the old civilizational battle between communism and capitalism has shifted. “Now, they think the battle is ‘woke’ versus ‘unwoke’. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend,” he said. “Unfortunately, he is also a brutal and ruthless dictator. So now they have to make Americans a little more comfortable with that. I mean liberty is nice, but have you seen Russia’s shopping carts?” W hile other late-night hosts were off for Presidents’ Day, Jon Stewart once again resumed his chair at the Daily Show to defend his monologue about Joe Biden’s age and talk Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show Read more The Daily Show Jon Stewart opened his monologue on The Daily Show, his second since returning on Mondays through the election, to defend his first, in which he expressed voter concerns over Joe Biden’s age and mental fitness for office. The bit drew heated criticism from some Democrats, such as the former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann , who called him a “bothsidesist fraud” on X, formerly Twitter. “But that was on Twitter, everything on Twitter gets a backlash,” said Stewart. “I’ve seen Twitter tell Labradoodles to go fuck themselves. “I just think it’s better to deal head-on with what’s an apparent issue to people,” he added. “I guess as the famous saying goes – democracy dies in discussion,” he joked. “I have sinned against you. I’m sorry. It was never my intention to say out loud what I saw with my eyes and then brain. I can do better. I can have learning!” Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Read more Stewart then transitioned to his main segment of the night, on the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s interview with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, offering a lesson in “world-class fealty to power”. Step one: “lie about what your job is” – not journalism, as Carlson claimed – and what your duty is (not to inform people, either). As Carlson claimed: “Freedom of speech is our birthright. We were born with the right to say what we believe.” “Ah, disguise your deception and capitulation to power as noble and moral and based in freedom,” Stewart noted. In the on-location report from Moscow , Carlson praised the city’s art deco subway stations and the efficiency of its grocery stores, reacting to fresh-baked bread with such enthusiasm that “I’d hate to think what would’ve happened if he had found a bagel,” said Stewart. And he spoke to Putin with a facial expression Stewart could only describe as a “mixture of shame, arousal and I’m gonna say irregularity – for instance, like you’re constipated while jerking off to a Sears catalog”. Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Read more Carlson claimed the experience of shopping for weekly groceries for $104 “radicalized” him against US leaders – “it will radicalize you, unless you understand basic economics”, Stewart corrected. “You see, $104 for groceries sounds like a great bargain, unless you realize that Russians earn less than $200 a week. “Here’s the reality: you fucking know all this, because you aren’t as dumb as your face would have us believe,” Stewart continued, addressing Carlson directly. “Perhaps if your handlers had allowed, you would’ve seen that there’s a hidden fee to your cheap groceries and orderly streets. Ask Alexei Navalny or any of his supporters.” In recent days, Russian state police have cracked down on pro-democracy protesters, arresting anyone who publicly mourned the opposition leader who mysteriously died in prison last week. “The difference between our urinal-caked, chaotic subways and your candelabra, beautiful subways is the literal price of freedom,” said Stewart. “But the goal that Carlson and his ilk are pushing is that there’s really no difference between our systems. In fact, theirs might be a little bit better. The question is why, why is Tucker doing this?” Stewart theorized that it’s because the old civilizational battle between communism and capitalism has shifted. “Now, they think the battle is ‘woke’ versus ‘unwoke’. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend,” he said. “Unfortunately, he is also a brutal and ruthless dictator. So now they have to make Americans a little more comfortable with that. I mean liberty is nice, but have you seen Russia’s shopping carts?” W hile other late-night hosts were off for Presidents’ Day, Jon Stewart once again resumed his chair at the Daily Show to defend his monologue about Joe Biden’s age and talk Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show Read more ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show Read more ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show Read more ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show ‘Honest, critical, sane’: Jon Stewart’s welcome return to The Daily Show Jon Stewart opened his monologue on The Daily Show, his second since returning on Mondays through the election, to defend his first, in which he expressed voter concerns over Joe Biden’s age and mental fitness for office. The bit drew heated criticism from some Democrats, such as the former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann , who called him a “bothsidesist fraud” on X, formerly Twitter. “But that was on Twitter, everything on Twitter gets a backlash,” said Stewart. “I’ve seen Twitter tell Labradoodles to go fuck themselves. “I just think it’s better to deal head-on with what’s an apparent issue to people,” he added. “I guess as the famous saying goes – democracy dies in discussion,” he joked. “I have sinned against you. I’m sorry. It was never my intention to say out loud what I saw with my eyes and then brain. I can do better. I can have learning!” Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Read more Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Read more Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Read more Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Seth Meyers on Trump: ‘He’ll have to Zoom in to rallies from the court’ Stewart then transitioned to his main segment of the night, on the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s interview with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, offering a lesson in “world-class fealty to power”. Step one: “lie about what your job is” – not journalism, as Carlson claimed – and what your duty is (not to inform people, either). As Carlson claimed: “Freedom of speech is our birthright. We were born with the right to say what we believe.” “Ah, disguise your deception and capitulation to power as noble and moral and based in freedom,” Stewart noted. In the on-location report from Moscow , Carlson praised the city’s art deco subway stations and the efficiency of its grocery stores, reacting to fresh-baked bread with such enthusiasm that “I’d hate to think what would’ve happened if he had found a bagel,” said Stewart. And he spoke to Putin with a facial expression Stewart could only describe as a “mixture of shame, arousal and I’m gonna say irregularity – for instance, like you’re constipated while jerking off to a Sears catalog”. Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Read more Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Read more Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Read more Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine Carlson claimed the experience of shopping for weekly groceries for $104 “radicalized” him against US leaders – “it will radicalize you, unless you understand basic economics”, Stewart corrected. “You see, $104 for groceries sounds like a great bargain, unless you realize that Russians earn less than $200 a week. “Here’s the reality: you fucking know all this, because you aren’t as dumb as your face would have us believe,” Stewart continued, addressing Carlson directly. “Perhaps if your handlers had allowed, you would’ve seen that there’s a hidden fee to your cheap groceries and orderly streets. Ask Alexei Navalny or any of his supporters.” In recent days, Russian state police have cracked down on pro-democracy protesters, arresting anyone who publicly mourned the opposition leader who mysteriously died in prison last week. “The difference between our urinal-caked, chaotic subways and your candelabra, beautiful subways is the literal price of freedom,” said Stewart. “But the goal that Carlson and his ilk are pushing is that there’s really no difference between our systems. In fact, theirs might be a little bit better. The question is why, why is Tucker doing this?” Stewart theorized that it’s because the old civilizational battle between communism and capitalism has shifted. “Now, they think the battle is ‘woke’ versus ‘unwoke’. And in that fight, Putin is an ally to the right. He’s their friend,” he said. “Unfortunately, he is also a brutal and ruthless dictator. So now they have to make Americans a little more comfortable with that. I mean liberty is nice, but have you seen Russia’s shopping carts?” Explore more on these topics Late-night TV roundup Jon Stewart TV comedy Comedy Television features Share Reuse this content Late-night TV roundup Jon Stewart TV comedy Comedy Television features |
SNP welcomes Labour call for ‘immediate humanitarian ceasefire’ in Gaza, claiming it forced Starmer into U-turn – as it happened
The SNP has welcomed Labour’s decision to call for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in its amendment to the motion on Gaza being debated tomorrow. In a statement implying his party is happy with the Labour wording, Stephen Flynn says Keir Starmer has performed a U-turn under pressure from the SNP. He is also suggesting that Labour frontbenchers sacked or made to resign for voting for an SNP ceasefire amendment in November should be given their jobs back. Here is Flynn’s statement in full. I welcome this long-overdue U-turn from Sir Keir Starmer who now appears to support the SNP’s call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. However, the plain truth is Sir Keir was forced into this position through public pressure and, in particular, by the SNP. It’s telling that it took the SNP to insert a backbone into the Labour party and act as Westminster’s conscience on this conflict. Questions will naturally arise as to why it’s taken Sir Keir so long to change his mind, what his long months of prevarication achieved, and whether he will reinstate the MPs he sacked in November for supporting the same position he finally holds too. These are all questions the Labour party leader will now have answer – I am just relieved that he has finally changed his mind and changed his position. This change of position shows what Scotland can achieve when a strong team of SNP MPs puts pressure on the Labour party to act in line with our values. Since Westminster rejected a ceasefire in November, more than 29,000 Palestinian children, women and men have been killed. It’s vital MPs don’t make the same mistake again. The focus is now squarely on Rishi Sunak. Both he and Sir Keir Starmer shared the same position until now – I hope he now takes the opportunity to reverse his stance too. I urge Rishi Sunak and the UK government to join with the vast majority of the international community, back an immediate ceasefire – and then ensure the UK government acts on it by applying the maximum diplomatic pressure. The government has not yet said what position its MPs will be asked to take in the vote tomorrow, but there is nothing in the Labour wording that contradicts what Rishi Sunak and David Cameron have said in setting out their own views on a Gaza ceasefire. |
Climate activists smashed glass door of JP Morgan in London, court hears
The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Climate activists smashed glass door of JP Morgan in London, court hears This article is more than 1 year old Five women targeted investment bank with hammers and chisels during Extinction Rebellion protest, jury told Five climate protesters armed with hammers and chisels smashed a glass door at the European headquarters of the American investment bank JP Morgan in London, a court heard. The Extinction Rebellion activists targeted the bank in the City of London, smashing a large glazed panel revolving door and causing many thousands of pounds-worth of damage, a jury was told on Tuesday. Brett Weaver, prosecuting at their trial at Inner London crown court, said the five women made their way to JP Morgan early on 1 September 2021. “One of the security staff at the premises saw them approaching and recognised that some form of protest action was about to take place,” said Weaver. “The defendants climbed over the temporary railings that were positioned in front of the entrance area. They began to strike at the glass doors of the building using hammers, chisels and other implements. “As they did so, cracks began to appear in the glass and one of the hinged doors shattered effectively.” Amy Pritchard, 38, Stephanie Aylett, 29, Adelheid Russenberger, 32, Rosemary Webster, 66, and Pamela Bellinger, 66, deny causing criminal damage. Weaver said once the glass was damaged the defendants and their companions moved back over the temporary railings and on to the street. Police called to the scene found a group of protesters seated on the ground in a circle in front of the building. “In front of the group, on the ground, were a number of implements, such as hammers and chisels,” said Weaver. Weaver said the protesters caused damage to the revolving door, one of the hinged doors, and the larger glass panel that surrounded the hinged door. He said Aylett was wearing clothing with a number of coloured signs attached, most obviously a pink sign on her back that said: “Deeds not words”, Weaver said: “Their actions, coupled with the fact that they also had implements intended to be used to damage the glass, demonstrate that each of them was part of a coordinated plan to cause both disruption and damage to that building. “As a result of their actions, the damage caused was significant. The glass doors had to be replaced. More significantly, the large, glazed panel had to be replaced entirely.” Weaver said the point of their actions was to “disrupt the lawful business of JP Morgan and draw attention to their cause”. “The actions of these defendants arose in the context of a protest on behalf of Extinction Rebellion,” he said “None of them are anticipated to dispute that they each caused damage to the windows or doors or panel. The issue will be whether any or all of them had any lawful defence to causing such damage.” The prosecutor said the case was not about the rights and wrongs of the government’s climate policies or the activities of financial institutions in respect of fossil fuels. “Nor is it about whether the motives behind the actions of Extinction Rebellion are right or wrong,” he said. Addressing the jury at the start of the trial, Judge Silas Reid asked them to put aside sympathy or prejudice. “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change,” said Reid. “This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that, and nothing less.” Pritchard, of Walthamstow, Aylett, of St Albans, Hertfordshire, Bellinger, of Leicester, Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all deny criminal damage. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Climate activists smashed glass door of JP Morgan in London, court hears This article is more than 1 year old Five women targeted investment bank with hammers and chisels during Extinction Rebellion protest, jury told Five climate protesters armed with hammers and chisels smashed a glass door at the European headquarters of the American investment bank JP Morgan in London, a court heard. The Extinction Rebellion activists targeted the bank in the City of London, smashing a large glazed panel revolving door and causing many thousands of pounds-worth of damage, a jury was told on Tuesday. Brett Weaver, prosecuting at their trial at Inner London crown court, said the five women made their way to JP Morgan early on 1 September 2021. “One of the security staff at the premises saw them approaching and recognised that some form of protest action was about to take place,” said Weaver. “The defendants climbed over the temporary railings that were positioned in front of the entrance area. They began to strike at the glass doors of the building using hammers, chisels and other implements. “As they did so, cracks began to appear in the glass and one of the hinged doors shattered effectively.” Amy Pritchard, 38, Stephanie Aylett, 29, Adelheid Russenberger, 32, Rosemary Webster, 66, and Pamela Bellinger, 66, deny causing criminal damage. Weaver said once the glass was damaged the defendants and their companions moved back over the temporary railings and on to the street. Police called to the scene found a group of protesters seated on the ground in a circle in front of the building. “In front of the group, on the ground, were a number of implements, such as hammers and chisels,” said Weaver. Weaver said the protesters caused damage to the revolving door, one of the hinged doors, and the larger glass panel that surrounded the hinged door. He said Aylett was wearing clothing with a number of coloured signs attached, most obviously a pink sign on her back that said: “Deeds not words”, Weaver said: “Their actions, coupled with the fact that they also had implements intended to be used to damage the glass, demonstrate that each of them was part of a coordinated plan to cause both disruption and damage to that building. “As a result of their actions, the damage caused was significant. The glass doors had to be replaced. More significantly, the large, glazed panel had to be replaced entirely.” Weaver said the point of their actions was to “disrupt the lawful business of JP Morgan and draw attention to their cause”. “The actions of these defendants arose in the context of a protest on behalf of Extinction Rebellion,” he said “None of them are anticipated to dispute that they each caused damage to the windows or doors or panel. The issue will be whether any or all of them had any lawful defence to causing such damage.” The prosecutor said the case was not about the rights and wrongs of the government’s climate policies or the activities of financial institutions in respect of fossil fuels. “Nor is it about whether the motives behind the actions of Extinction Rebellion are right or wrong,” he said. Addressing the jury at the start of the trial, Judge Silas Reid asked them to put aside sympathy or prejudice. “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change,” said Reid. “This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that, and nothing less.” Pritchard, of Walthamstow, Aylett, of St Albans, Hertfordshire, Bellinger, of Leicester, Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all deny criminal damage. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Climate activists smashed glass door of JP Morgan in London, court hears This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Climate activists smashed glass door of JP Morgan in London, court hears This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Climate activists smashed glass door of JP Morgan in London, court hears This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Five women targeted investment bank with hammers and chisels during Extinction Rebellion protest, jury told Five women targeted investment bank with hammers and chisels during Extinction Rebellion protest, jury told Five women targeted investment bank with hammers and chisels during Extinction Rebellion protest, jury told Five climate protesters armed with hammers and chisels smashed a glass door at the European headquarters of the American investment bank JP Morgan in London, a court heard. The Extinction Rebellion activists targeted the bank in the City of London, smashing a large glazed panel revolving door and causing many thousands of pounds-worth of damage, a jury was told on Tuesday. Brett Weaver, prosecuting at their trial at Inner London crown court, said the five women made their way to JP Morgan early on 1 September 2021. “One of the security staff at the premises saw them approaching and recognised that some form of protest action was about to take place,” said Weaver. “The defendants climbed over the temporary railings that were positioned in front of the entrance area. They began to strike at the glass doors of the building using hammers, chisels and other implements. “As they did so, cracks began to appear in the glass and one of the hinged doors shattered effectively.” Amy Pritchard, 38, Stephanie Aylett, 29, Adelheid Russenberger, 32, Rosemary Webster, 66, and Pamela Bellinger, 66, deny causing criminal damage. Weaver said once the glass was damaged the defendants and their companions moved back over the temporary railings and on to the street. Police called to the scene found a group of protesters seated on the ground in a circle in front of the building. “In front of the group, on the ground, were a number of implements, such as hammers and chisels,” said Weaver. Weaver said the protesters caused damage to the revolving door, one of the hinged doors, and the larger glass panel that surrounded the hinged door. He said Aylett was wearing clothing with a number of coloured signs attached, most obviously a pink sign on her back that said: “Deeds not words”, Weaver said: “Their actions, coupled with the fact that they also had implements intended to be used to damage the glass, demonstrate that each of them was part of a coordinated plan to cause both disruption and damage to that building. “As a result of their actions, the damage caused was significant. The glass doors had to be replaced. More significantly, the large, glazed panel had to be replaced entirely.” Weaver said the point of their actions was to “disrupt the lawful business of JP Morgan and draw attention to their cause”. “The actions of these defendants arose in the context of a protest on behalf of Extinction Rebellion,” he said “None of them are anticipated to dispute that they each caused damage to the windows or doors or panel. The issue will be whether any or all of them had any lawful defence to causing such damage.” The prosecutor said the case was not about the rights and wrongs of the government’s climate policies or the activities of financial institutions in respect of fossil fuels. “Nor is it about whether the motives behind the actions of Extinction Rebellion are right or wrong,” he said. Addressing the jury at the start of the trial, Judge Silas Reid asked them to put aside sympathy or prejudice. “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change,” said Reid. “This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that, and nothing less.” Pritchard, of Walthamstow, Aylett, of St Albans, Hertfordshire, Bellinger, of Leicester, Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all deny criminal damage. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content Five climate protesters armed with hammers and chisels smashed a glass door at the European headquarters of the American investment bank JP Morgan in London, a court heard. The Extinction Rebellion activists targeted the bank in the City of London, smashing a large glazed panel revolving door and causing many thousands of pounds-worth of damage, a jury was told on Tuesday. Brett Weaver, prosecuting at their trial at Inner London crown court, said the five women made their way to JP Morgan early on 1 September 2021. “One of the security staff at the premises saw them approaching and recognised that some form of protest action was about to take place,” said Weaver. “The defendants climbed over the temporary railings that were positioned in front of the entrance area. They began to strike at the glass doors of the building using hammers, chisels and other implements. “As they did so, cracks began to appear in the glass and one of the hinged doors shattered effectively.” Amy Pritchard, 38, Stephanie Aylett, 29, Adelheid Russenberger, 32, Rosemary Webster, 66, and Pamela Bellinger, 66, deny causing criminal damage. Weaver said once the glass was damaged the defendants and their companions moved back over the temporary railings and on to the street. Police called to the scene found a group of protesters seated on the ground in a circle in front of the building. “In front of the group, on the ground, were a number of implements, such as hammers and chisels,” said Weaver. Weaver said the protesters caused damage to the revolving door, one of the hinged doors, and the larger glass panel that surrounded the hinged door. He said Aylett was wearing clothing with a number of coloured signs attached, most obviously a pink sign on her back that said: “Deeds not words”, Weaver said: “Their actions, coupled with the fact that they also had implements intended to be used to damage the glass, demonstrate that each of them was part of a coordinated plan to cause both disruption and damage to that building. “As a result of their actions, the damage caused was significant. The glass doors had to be replaced. More significantly, the large, glazed panel had to be replaced entirely.” Weaver said the point of their actions was to “disrupt the lawful business of JP Morgan and draw attention to their cause”. “The actions of these defendants arose in the context of a protest on behalf of Extinction Rebellion,” he said “None of them are anticipated to dispute that they each caused damage to the windows or doors or panel. The issue will be whether any or all of them had any lawful defence to causing such damage.” The prosecutor said the case was not about the rights and wrongs of the government’s climate policies or the activities of financial institutions in respect of fossil fuels. “Nor is it about whether the motives behind the actions of Extinction Rebellion are right or wrong,” he said. Addressing the jury at the start of the trial, Judge Silas Reid asked them to put aside sympathy or prejudice. “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change,” said Reid. “This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that, and nothing less.” Pritchard, of Walthamstow, Aylett, of St Albans, Hertfordshire, Bellinger, of Leicester, Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all deny criminal damage. The trial continues. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content Five climate protesters armed with hammers and chisels smashed a glass door at the European headquarters of the American investment bank JP Morgan in London, a court heard. The Extinction Rebellion activists targeted the bank in the City of London, smashing a large glazed panel revolving door and causing many thousands of pounds-worth of damage, a jury was told on Tuesday. Brett Weaver, prosecuting at their trial at Inner London crown court, said the five women made their way to JP Morgan early on 1 September 2021. “One of the security staff at the premises saw them approaching and recognised that some form of protest action was about to take place,” said Weaver. “The defendants climbed over the temporary railings that were positioned in front of the entrance area. They began to strike at the glass doors of the building using hammers, chisels and other implements. “As they did so, cracks began to appear in the glass and one of the hinged doors shattered effectively.” Amy Pritchard, 38, Stephanie Aylett, 29, Adelheid Russenberger, 32, Rosemary Webster, 66, and Pamela Bellinger, 66, deny causing criminal damage. Weaver said once the glass was damaged the defendants and their companions moved back over the temporary railings and on to the street. Police called to the scene found a group of protesters seated on the ground in a circle in front of the building. “In front of the group, on the ground, were a number of implements, such as hammers and chisels,” said Weaver. Weaver said the protesters caused damage to the revolving door, one of the hinged doors, and the larger glass panel that surrounded the hinged door. He said Aylett was wearing clothing with a number of coloured signs attached, most obviously a pink sign on her back that said: “Deeds not words”, Weaver said: “Their actions, coupled with the fact that they also had implements intended to be used to damage the glass, demonstrate that each of them was part of a coordinated plan to cause both disruption and damage to that building. “As a result of their actions, the damage caused was significant. The glass doors had to be replaced. More significantly, the large, glazed panel had to be replaced entirely.” Weaver said the point of their actions was to “disrupt the lawful business of JP Morgan and draw attention to their cause”. “The actions of these defendants arose in the context of a protest on behalf of Extinction Rebellion,” he said “None of them are anticipated to dispute that they each caused damage to the windows or doors or panel. The issue will be whether any or all of them had any lawful defence to causing such damage.” The prosecutor said the case was not about the rights and wrongs of the government’s climate policies or the activities of financial institutions in respect of fossil fuels. “Nor is it about whether the motives behind the actions of Extinction Rebellion are right or wrong,” he said. Addressing the jury at the start of the trial, Judge Silas Reid asked them to put aside sympathy or prejudice. “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change,” said Reid. “This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that, and nothing less.” Pritchard, of Walthamstow, Aylett, of St Albans, Hertfordshire, Bellinger, of Leicester, Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all deny criminal damage. The trial continues. Five climate protesters armed with hammers and chisels smashed a glass door at the European headquarters of the American investment bank JP Morgan in London, a court heard. The Extinction Rebellion activists targeted the bank in the City of London, smashing a large glazed panel revolving door and causing many thousands of pounds-worth of damage, a jury was told on Tuesday. Brett Weaver, prosecuting at their trial at Inner London crown court, said the five women made their way to JP Morgan early on 1 September 2021. “One of the security staff at the premises saw them approaching and recognised that some form of protest action was about to take place,” said Weaver. “The defendants climbed over the temporary railings that were positioned in front of the entrance area. They began to strike at the glass doors of the building using hammers, chisels and other implements. “As they did so, cracks began to appear in the glass and one of the hinged doors shattered effectively.” Amy Pritchard, 38, Stephanie Aylett, 29, Adelheid Russenberger, 32, Rosemary Webster, 66, and Pamela Bellinger, 66, deny causing criminal damage. Weaver said once the glass was damaged the defendants and their companions moved back over the temporary railings and on to the street. Police called to the scene found a group of protesters seated on the ground in a circle in front of the building. “In front of the group, on the ground, were a number of implements, such as hammers and chisels,” said Weaver. Weaver said the protesters caused damage to the revolving door, one of the hinged doors, and the larger glass panel that surrounded the hinged door. He said Aylett was wearing clothing with a number of coloured signs attached, most obviously a pink sign on her back that said: “Deeds not words”, Weaver said: “Their actions, coupled with the fact that they also had implements intended to be used to damage the glass, demonstrate that each of them was part of a coordinated plan to cause both disruption and damage to that building. “As a result of their actions, the damage caused was significant. The glass doors had to be replaced. More significantly, the large, glazed panel had to be replaced entirely.” Weaver said the point of their actions was to “disrupt the lawful business of JP Morgan and draw attention to their cause”. “The actions of these defendants arose in the context of a protest on behalf of Extinction Rebellion,” he said “None of them are anticipated to dispute that they each caused damage to the windows or doors or panel. The issue will be whether any or all of them had any lawful defence to causing such damage.” The prosecutor said the case was not about the rights and wrongs of the government’s climate policies or the activities of financial institutions in respect of fossil fuels. “Nor is it about whether the motives behind the actions of Extinction Rebellion are right or wrong,” he said. Addressing the jury at the start of the trial, Judge Silas Reid asked them to put aside sympathy or prejudice. “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change,” said Reid. “This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that, and nothing less.” Pritchard, of Walthamstow, Aylett, of St Albans, Hertfordshire, Bellinger, of Leicester, Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all deny criminal damage. The trial continues. Five climate protesters armed with hammers and chisels smashed a glass door at the European headquarters of the American investment bank JP Morgan in London, a court heard. The Extinction Rebellion activists targeted the bank in the City of London, smashing a large glazed panel revolving door and causing many thousands of pounds-worth of damage, a jury was told on Tuesday. Brett Weaver, prosecuting at their trial at Inner London crown court, said the five women made their way to JP Morgan early on 1 September 2021. “One of the security staff at the premises saw them approaching and recognised that some form of protest action was about to take place,” said Weaver. “The defendants climbed over the temporary railings that were positioned in front of the entrance area. They began to strike at the glass doors of the building using hammers, chisels and other implements. “As they did so, cracks began to appear in the glass and one of the hinged doors shattered effectively.” Amy Pritchard, 38, Stephanie Aylett, 29, Adelheid Russenberger, 32, Rosemary Webster, 66, and Pamela Bellinger, 66, deny causing criminal damage. Weaver said once the glass was damaged the defendants and their companions moved back over the temporary railings and on to the street. Police called to the scene found a group of protesters seated on the ground in a circle in front of the building. “In front of the group, on the ground, were a number of implements, such as hammers and chisels,” said Weaver. Weaver said the protesters caused damage to the revolving door, one of the hinged doors, and the larger glass panel that surrounded the hinged door. He said Aylett was wearing clothing with a number of coloured signs attached, most obviously a pink sign on her back that said: “Deeds not words”, Weaver said: “Their actions, coupled with the fact that they also had implements intended to be used to damage the glass, demonstrate that each of them was part of a coordinated plan to cause both disruption and damage to that building. “As a result of their actions, the damage caused was significant. The glass doors had to be replaced. More significantly, the large, glazed panel had to be replaced entirely.” Weaver said the point of their actions was to “disrupt the lawful business of JP Morgan and draw attention to their cause”. “The actions of these defendants arose in the context of a protest on behalf of Extinction Rebellion,” he said “None of them are anticipated to dispute that they each caused damage to the windows or doors or panel. The issue will be whether any or all of them had any lawful defence to causing such damage.” The prosecutor said the case was not about the rights and wrongs of the government’s climate policies or the activities of financial institutions in respect of fossil fuels. “Nor is it about whether the motives behind the actions of Extinction Rebellion are right or wrong,” he said. Addressing the jury at the start of the trial, Judge Silas Reid asked them to put aside sympathy or prejudice. “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change,” said Reid. “This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that, and nothing less.” Pritchard, of Walthamstow, Aylett, of St Albans, Hertfordshire, Bellinger, of Leicester, Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all deny criminal damage. Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content |
Three Greenpeace activists charged over protest at Rishi Sunak’s mansion
Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA View image in fullscreen Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA This article is more than 1 year old Three Greenpeace activists charged over protest at Rishi Sunak’s mansion This article is more than 1 year old Campaigners accused of criminal damage after draping black fabric over the property in North Yorkshire Three Greenpeace activists who draped oil-black fabric over the side of Rishi Sunak’s North Yorkshire mansion, in a protest responding to his promise to “max out” UK oil and gas reserves, have been charged with criminal damage. Mathieu Soete, 38, of Hackney in east London, and Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, and Alexandra Wilson, 32, of Shiremoor, North Tyneside, were each charged with a single count of criminal damage over the stunt at the prime minister’s family residence last August. They are due to appear at York magistrates court on 21 March. A fourth individual is due to answer bail “at a later date”, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said. Sunak, his wife and their daughters were on summer holiday in California when five activists were arrested for carrying out the stunt in Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton. After scaling the house using ladders and climbing ropes in the early hours of the morning, activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house, while two more standing on the lawn in front of the building unfurled a banner saying: “Rishi Sunak – Oil Profits or Our Future?” Rosemary Ainslie, the head of the CPS special crime division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by North Yorkshire police, we have authorised criminal charges against one man and two women after a protest at the home of prime minister Rishi Sunak on 3 August 2023. “The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against the three defendants are active and that they have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA View image in fullscreen Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA This article is more than 1 year old Three Greenpeace activists charged over protest at Rishi Sunak’s mansion This article is more than 1 year old Campaigners accused of criminal damage after draping black fabric over the property in North Yorkshire Three Greenpeace activists who draped oil-black fabric over the side of Rishi Sunak’s North Yorkshire mansion, in a protest responding to his promise to “max out” UK oil and gas reserves, have been charged with criminal damage. Mathieu Soete, 38, of Hackney in east London, and Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, and Alexandra Wilson, 32, of Shiremoor, North Tyneside, were each charged with a single count of criminal damage over the stunt at the prime minister’s family residence last August. They are due to appear at York magistrates court on 21 March. A fourth individual is due to answer bail “at a later date”, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said. Sunak, his wife and their daughters were on summer holiday in California when five activists were arrested for carrying out the stunt in Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton. After scaling the house using ladders and climbing ropes in the early hours of the morning, activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house, while two more standing on the lawn in front of the building unfurled a banner saying: “Rishi Sunak – Oil Profits or Our Future?” Rosemary Ainslie, the head of the CPS special crime division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by North Yorkshire police, we have authorised criminal charges against one man and two women after a protest at the home of prime minister Rishi Sunak on 3 August 2023. “The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against the three defendants are active and that they have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA View image in fullscreen Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA View image in fullscreen Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA View image in fullscreen Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA View image in fullscreen Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA Activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA This article is more than 1 year old Three Greenpeace activists charged over protest at Rishi Sunak’s mansion This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Three Greenpeace activists charged over protest at Rishi Sunak’s mansion This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Three Greenpeace activists charged over protest at Rishi Sunak’s mansion This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Campaigners accused of criminal damage after draping black fabric over the property in North Yorkshire Campaigners accused of criminal damage after draping black fabric over the property in North Yorkshire Campaigners accused of criminal damage after draping black fabric over the property in North Yorkshire Three Greenpeace activists who draped oil-black fabric over the side of Rishi Sunak’s North Yorkshire mansion, in a protest responding to his promise to “max out” UK oil and gas reserves, have been charged with criminal damage. Mathieu Soete, 38, of Hackney in east London, and Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, and Alexandra Wilson, 32, of Shiremoor, North Tyneside, were each charged with a single count of criminal damage over the stunt at the prime minister’s family residence last August. They are due to appear at York magistrates court on 21 March. A fourth individual is due to answer bail “at a later date”, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said. Sunak, his wife and their daughters were on summer holiday in California when five activists were arrested for carrying out the stunt in Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton. After scaling the house using ladders and climbing ropes in the early hours of the morning, activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house, while two more standing on the lawn in front of the building unfurled a banner saying: “Rishi Sunak – Oil Profits or Our Future?” Rosemary Ainslie, the head of the CPS special crime division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by North Yorkshire police, we have authorised criminal charges against one man and two women after a protest at the home of prime minister Rishi Sunak on 3 August 2023. “The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against the three defendants are active and that they have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content Three Greenpeace activists who draped oil-black fabric over the side of Rishi Sunak’s North Yorkshire mansion, in a protest responding to his promise to “max out” UK oil and gas reserves, have been charged with criminal damage. Mathieu Soete, 38, of Hackney in east London, and Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, and Alexandra Wilson, 32, of Shiremoor, North Tyneside, were each charged with a single count of criminal damage over the stunt at the prime minister’s family residence last August. They are due to appear at York magistrates court on 21 March. A fourth individual is due to answer bail “at a later date”, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said. Sunak, his wife and their daughters were on summer holiday in California when five activists were arrested for carrying out the stunt in Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton. After scaling the house using ladders and climbing ropes in the early hours of the morning, activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house, while two more standing on the lawn in front of the building unfurled a banner saying: “Rishi Sunak – Oil Profits or Our Future?” Rosemary Ainslie, the head of the CPS special crime division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by North Yorkshire police, we have authorised criminal charges against one man and two women after a protest at the home of prime minister Rishi Sunak on 3 August 2023. “The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against the three defendants are active and that they have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content Three Greenpeace activists who draped oil-black fabric over the side of Rishi Sunak’s North Yorkshire mansion, in a protest responding to his promise to “max out” UK oil and gas reserves, have been charged with criminal damage. Mathieu Soete, 38, of Hackney in east London, and Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, and Alexandra Wilson, 32, of Shiremoor, North Tyneside, were each charged with a single count of criminal damage over the stunt at the prime minister’s family residence last August. They are due to appear at York magistrates court on 21 March. A fourth individual is due to answer bail “at a later date”, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said. Sunak, his wife and their daughters were on summer holiday in California when five activists were arrested for carrying out the stunt in Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton. After scaling the house using ladders and climbing ropes in the early hours of the morning, activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house, while two more standing on the lawn in front of the building unfurled a banner saying: “Rishi Sunak – Oil Profits or Our Future?” Rosemary Ainslie, the head of the CPS special crime division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by North Yorkshire police, we have authorised criminal charges against one man and two women after a protest at the home of prime minister Rishi Sunak on 3 August 2023. “The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against the three defendants are active and that they have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” Three Greenpeace activists who draped oil-black fabric over the side of Rishi Sunak’s North Yorkshire mansion, in a protest responding to his promise to “max out” UK oil and gas reserves, have been charged with criminal damage. Mathieu Soete, 38, of Hackney in east London, and Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, and Alexandra Wilson, 32, of Shiremoor, North Tyneside, were each charged with a single count of criminal damage over the stunt at the prime minister’s family residence last August. They are due to appear at York magistrates court on 21 March. A fourth individual is due to answer bail “at a later date”, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said. Sunak, his wife and their daughters were on summer holiday in California when five activists were arrested for carrying out the stunt in Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton. After scaling the house using ladders and climbing ropes in the early hours of the morning, activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house, while two more standing on the lawn in front of the building unfurled a banner saying: “Rishi Sunak – Oil Profits or Our Future?” Rosemary Ainslie, the head of the CPS special crime division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by North Yorkshire police, we have authorised criminal charges against one man and two women after a protest at the home of prime minister Rishi Sunak on 3 August 2023. “The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against the three defendants are active and that they have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” Three Greenpeace activists who draped oil-black fabric over the side of Rishi Sunak’s North Yorkshire mansion, in a protest responding to his promise to “max out” UK oil and gas reserves, have been charged with criminal damage. Mathieu Soete, 38, of Hackney in east London, and Amy Rugg-Easey, 33, and Alexandra Wilson, 32, of Shiremoor, North Tyneside, were each charged with a single count of criminal damage over the stunt at the prime minister’s family residence last August. They are due to appear at York magistrates court on 21 March. A fourth individual is due to answer bail “at a later date”, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said. Sunak, his wife and their daughters were on summer holiday in California when five activists were arrested for carrying out the stunt in Kirby Sigston, near Northallerton. After scaling the house using ladders and climbing ropes in the early hours of the morning, activists on the roof unfurled 200 sq metres of fabric, covering a whole side of the house, while two more standing on the lawn in front of the building unfurled a banner saying: “Rishi Sunak – Oil Profits or Our Future?” Rosemary Ainslie, the head of the CPS special crime division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by North Yorkshire police, we have authorised criminal charges against one man and two women after a protest at the home of prime minister Rishi Sunak on 3 August 2023. “The Crown Prosecution Service reminds all concerned that criminal proceedings against the three defendants are active and that they have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.” Explore more on these topics UK news news Share Reuse this content |
‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers
Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers This article is more than 1 year old Helena Horton and Ben Quinn Rishi Sunak’s charm offensive at NFU conference fails to win over rural voters, but Labour also faces scepticism Farmers often feel ignored by Westminster politicians. Now, however, as a general election heaves slowly into view and the fight for the rural vote begins, it was not a huge surprise when the prime minister, Rishi Sunak , turned up at their annual conference. Sunak told farmers: “I have your back” and waxed nostalgic about the bucolic British countryside and his experience milking a cow. But after years of very unpopular post-Brexit trade deals and a bungled agricultural transition from EU farming payments, it didn’t feel like this charm offensive landed. The response from the farmers in the hall was muted at best. Minette Batters, the outgoing president of the NFU, gave both barrels in her speech immediately before Sunak on the “morally bankrupt” decisions made by Conservatives over recent years. She seemed also to take Sunak’s proclamations of love for the British farming sector with a pinch of salt. It’s no surprise to see the Tories turning up here. Farmers have long been one of the most stalwart cores of the rural conservative vote, but recent polling by the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats, but they face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. The loss of votes among farmers was a factor behind three byelection losses – North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, and Somerton and Frome – to the Liberal Democrats. The big question at the conference, however, was why Labour had put in such a low-key showing. Sir Keir Starmer and the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, were invited to speak at the conference, but declined. They instead sent the junior shadow farming minister, Daniel Zeichner. None agreed to speak to the Guardian about their farming policy. There is a feeling that Labour is sitting back and watching the Conservatives fail in this politically fraught sector. Batters implied she did not trust Starmer or Sunak to protect British standards. “Oh gosh, trust is a big word,” she said, adding that Sunak was a huge improvement on former prime ministers Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who wanted to liberalise trade policy, which would have undercut British farmers. She is watching to see if Sunak puts core trading standards – that is, not accepting food produced to vastly inferior standards – in the Conservative manifesto. “Really, the Conservatives have to be very, very clear at the next election that they will introduce the Core Standards standard,” she said. Meanwhile, she is not entirely sure what Labour’s plans are. “With Starmer, I’m not yet sure what their trade policy is, if I’m honest, and therein lies another challenge. Labour must have policies. They have no trade policy that they have shared publicly.” Henry Morton, an arable farmer, seemed unconvinced by Sunak’s warm words: “Well, he needs our votes doesn’t he,” he said. “I think he did all right. He’s obviously out there to get as many votes as possible from the farmers but he said some positive things.” Colin Rayner, who farms in Windsor, is a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative but thinks there is nothing Sunak can do to win the farming vote. He said: “I don’t know if farmers will vote Labour – I think they will stay at home and not vote.” The Brexit trade deals and phaseout of EU farming payments had left farmers mistrustful of Conservatives, he said, and they may not gain that trust back “for a generation”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Martin Cockerill, a Yorkshire farmer, was cautiously optimistic about what Sunak said: “I think the realisation that food security is important is finally emerging and he spoke to that. But farming is still not treated as important by politicians in England.” He seemed pleased that Sunak had talked up his rural background. “He mentioned his neighbour who has a pig farm, and that was striking, that he actually speaks to his neighbour who’s a pig farmer.” Labour has also chosen to fight on areas that could ignite culture wars and ruffle feathers in the rural community, promising to end the badger cull and end trail hunting, the replacement for foxhunting in which hounds chase a scent rather than a fox. The right-wing press has already accused Labour of “class war” and a “new foxhunting row”. The Welsh Labour party has also been facing protests from farmers, and Batters has accused the leadership of stealing the future of farmers by forcing them to plant 10% of their land with trees to receive public funding. I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference Read more Farmers do seem to warm to Starmer more than Sunak. The Labour leader received a warm welcome at the NFU conference last year and Batters said Sunak was “picking up a lot of legacy” from Truss and Johnson, who were widely regarded as having betrayed rural workers. But Perkin Evans, a Welsh farmer, told the Guardian: “Look at what’s happened in Wales. There are fears among English farmers that as soon as Starmer gets in, he will cut the farming payments budget.” Perhaps that need for caution is why Labour politicians have remained so quiet around the flagship farming conference: the rural vote may be up for grabs but there is plenty of anger in these forgotten communities that is ready to ignite. Explore more on these topics Farming Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour Keir Starmer Rural affairs analysis Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers This article is more than 1 year old Helena Horton and Ben Quinn Rishi Sunak’s charm offensive at NFU conference fails to win over rural voters, but Labour also faces scepticism Farmers often feel ignored by Westminster politicians. Now, however, as a general election heaves slowly into view and the fight for the rural vote begins, it was not a huge surprise when the prime minister, Rishi Sunak , turned up at their annual conference. Sunak told farmers: “I have your back” and waxed nostalgic about the bucolic British countryside and his experience milking a cow. But after years of very unpopular post-Brexit trade deals and a bungled agricultural transition from EU farming payments, it didn’t feel like this charm offensive landed. The response from the farmers in the hall was muted at best. Minette Batters, the outgoing president of the NFU, gave both barrels in her speech immediately before Sunak on the “morally bankrupt” decisions made by Conservatives over recent years. She seemed also to take Sunak’s proclamations of love for the British farming sector with a pinch of salt. It’s no surprise to see the Tories turning up here. Farmers have long been one of the most stalwart cores of the rural conservative vote, but recent polling by the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats, but they face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. The loss of votes among farmers was a factor behind three byelection losses – North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, and Somerton and Frome – to the Liberal Democrats. The big question at the conference, however, was why Labour had put in such a low-key showing. Sir Keir Starmer and the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, were invited to speak at the conference, but declined. They instead sent the junior shadow farming minister, Daniel Zeichner. None agreed to speak to the Guardian about their farming policy. There is a feeling that Labour is sitting back and watching the Conservatives fail in this politically fraught sector. Batters implied she did not trust Starmer or Sunak to protect British standards. “Oh gosh, trust is a big word,” she said, adding that Sunak was a huge improvement on former prime ministers Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who wanted to liberalise trade policy, which would have undercut British farmers. She is watching to see if Sunak puts core trading standards – that is, not accepting food produced to vastly inferior standards – in the Conservative manifesto. “Really, the Conservatives have to be very, very clear at the next election that they will introduce the Core Standards standard,” she said. Meanwhile, she is not entirely sure what Labour’s plans are. “With Starmer, I’m not yet sure what their trade policy is, if I’m honest, and therein lies another challenge. Labour must have policies. They have no trade policy that they have shared publicly.” Henry Morton, an arable farmer, seemed unconvinced by Sunak’s warm words: “Well, he needs our votes doesn’t he,” he said. “I think he did all right. He’s obviously out there to get as many votes as possible from the farmers but he said some positive things.” Colin Rayner, who farms in Windsor, is a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative but thinks there is nothing Sunak can do to win the farming vote. He said: “I don’t know if farmers will vote Labour – I think they will stay at home and not vote.” The Brexit trade deals and phaseout of EU farming payments had left farmers mistrustful of Conservatives, he said, and they may not gain that trust back “for a generation”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Martin Cockerill, a Yorkshire farmer, was cautiously optimistic about what Sunak said: “I think the realisation that food security is important is finally emerging and he spoke to that. But farming is still not treated as important by politicians in England.” He seemed pleased that Sunak had talked up his rural background. “He mentioned his neighbour who has a pig farm, and that was striking, that he actually speaks to his neighbour who’s a pig farmer.” Labour has also chosen to fight on areas that could ignite culture wars and ruffle feathers in the rural community, promising to end the badger cull and end trail hunting, the replacement for foxhunting in which hounds chase a scent rather than a fox. The right-wing press has already accused Labour of “class war” and a “new foxhunting row”. The Welsh Labour party has also been facing protests from farmers, and Batters has accused the leadership of stealing the future of farmers by forcing them to plant 10% of their land with trees to receive public funding. I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference Read more Farmers do seem to warm to Starmer more than Sunak. The Labour leader received a warm welcome at the NFU conference last year and Batters said Sunak was “picking up a lot of legacy” from Truss and Johnson, who were widely regarded as having betrayed rural workers. But Perkin Evans, a Welsh farmer, told the Guardian: “Look at what’s happened in Wales. There are fears among English farmers that as soon as Starmer gets in, he will cut the farming payments budget.” Perhaps that need for caution is why Labour politicians have remained so quiet around the flagship farming conference: the rural vote may be up for grabs but there is plenty of anger in these forgotten communities that is ready to ignite. Explore more on these topics Farming Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour Keir Starmer Rural affairs analysis Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA Rishi Sunak talks to Minette Batters during the National Farmers’ Union conference. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/PA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers This article is more than 1 year old Helena Horton and Ben Quinn This article is more than 1 year old Analysis ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers This article is more than 1 year old Helena Horton and Ben Quinn This article is more than 1 year old Analysis ‘Morally bankrupt’: Tories may pay price for ignoring farmers This article is more than 1 year old Helena Horton and Ben Quinn This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak’s charm offensive at NFU conference fails to win over rural voters, but Labour also faces scepticism Rishi Sunak’s charm offensive at NFU conference fails to win over rural voters, but Labour also faces scepticism Rishi Sunak’s charm offensive at NFU conference fails to win over rural voters, but Labour also faces scepticism Farmers often feel ignored by Westminster politicians. Now, however, as a general election heaves slowly into view and the fight for the rural vote begins, it was not a huge surprise when the prime minister, Rishi Sunak , turned up at their annual conference. Sunak told farmers: “I have your back” and waxed nostalgic about the bucolic British countryside and his experience milking a cow. But after years of very unpopular post-Brexit trade deals and a bungled agricultural transition from EU farming payments, it didn’t feel like this charm offensive landed. The response from the farmers in the hall was muted at best. Minette Batters, the outgoing president of the NFU, gave both barrels in her speech immediately before Sunak on the “morally bankrupt” decisions made by Conservatives over recent years. She seemed also to take Sunak’s proclamations of love for the British farming sector with a pinch of salt. It’s no surprise to see the Tories turning up here. Farmers have long been one of the most stalwart cores of the rural conservative vote, but recent polling by the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats, but they face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. The loss of votes among farmers was a factor behind three byelection losses – North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, and Somerton and Frome – to the Liberal Democrats. The big question at the conference, however, was why Labour had put in such a low-key showing. Sir Keir Starmer and the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, were invited to speak at the conference, but declined. They instead sent the junior shadow farming minister, Daniel Zeichner. None agreed to speak to the Guardian about their farming policy. There is a feeling that Labour is sitting back and watching the Conservatives fail in this politically fraught sector. Batters implied she did not trust Starmer or Sunak to protect British standards. “Oh gosh, trust is a big word,” she said, adding that Sunak was a huge improvement on former prime ministers Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who wanted to liberalise trade policy, which would have undercut British farmers. She is watching to see if Sunak puts core trading standards – that is, not accepting food produced to vastly inferior standards – in the Conservative manifesto. “Really, the Conservatives have to be very, very clear at the next election that they will introduce the Core Standards standard,” she said. Meanwhile, she is not entirely sure what Labour’s plans are. “With Starmer, I’m not yet sure what their trade policy is, if I’m honest, and therein lies another challenge. Labour must have policies. They have no trade policy that they have shared publicly.” Henry Morton, an arable farmer, seemed unconvinced by Sunak’s warm words: “Well, he needs our votes doesn’t he,” he said. “I think he did all right. He’s obviously out there to get as many votes as possible from the farmers but he said some positive things.” Colin Rayner, who farms in Windsor, is a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative but thinks there is nothing Sunak can do to win the farming vote. He said: “I don’t know if farmers will vote Labour – I think they will stay at home and not vote.” The Brexit trade deals and phaseout of EU farming payments had left farmers mistrustful of Conservatives, he said, and they may not gain that trust back “for a generation”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Martin Cockerill, a Yorkshire farmer, was cautiously optimistic about what Sunak said: “I think the realisation that food security is important is finally emerging and he spoke to that. But farming is still not treated as important by politicians in England.” He seemed pleased that Sunak had talked up his rural background. “He mentioned his neighbour who has a pig farm, and that was striking, that he actually speaks to his neighbour who’s a pig farmer.” Labour has also chosen to fight on areas that could ignite culture wars and ruffle feathers in the rural community, promising to end the badger cull and end trail hunting, the replacement for foxhunting in which hounds chase a scent rather than a fox. The right-wing press has already accused Labour of “class war” and a “new foxhunting row”. The Welsh Labour party has also been facing protests from farmers, and Batters has accused the leadership of stealing the future of farmers by forcing them to plant 10% of their land with trees to receive public funding. I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference Read more Farmers do seem to warm to Starmer more than Sunak. The Labour leader received a warm welcome at the NFU conference last year and Batters said Sunak was “picking up a lot of legacy” from Truss and Johnson, who were widely regarded as having betrayed rural workers. But Perkin Evans, a Welsh farmer, told the Guardian: “Look at what’s happened in Wales. There are fears among English farmers that as soon as Starmer gets in, he will cut the farming payments budget.” Perhaps that need for caution is why Labour politicians have remained so quiet around the flagship farming conference: the rural vote may be up for grabs but there is plenty of anger in these forgotten communities that is ready to ignite. Explore more on these topics Farming Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour Keir Starmer Rural affairs analysis Share Reuse this content Farmers often feel ignored by Westminster politicians. Now, however, as a general election heaves slowly into view and the fight for the rural vote begins, it was not a huge surprise when the prime minister, Rishi Sunak , turned up at their annual conference. Sunak told farmers: “I have your back” and waxed nostalgic about the bucolic British countryside and his experience milking a cow. But after years of very unpopular post-Brexit trade deals and a bungled agricultural transition from EU farming payments, it didn’t feel like this charm offensive landed. The response from the farmers in the hall was muted at best. Minette Batters, the outgoing president of the NFU, gave both barrels in her speech immediately before Sunak on the “morally bankrupt” decisions made by Conservatives over recent years. She seemed also to take Sunak’s proclamations of love for the British farming sector with a pinch of salt. It’s no surprise to see the Tories turning up here. Farmers have long been one of the most stalwart cores of the rural conservative vote, but recent polling by the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats, but they face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. The loss of votes among farmers was a factor behind three byelection losses – North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, and Somerton and Frome – to the Liberal Democrats. The big question at the conference, however, was why Labour had put in such a low-key showing. Sir Keir Starmer and the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, were invited to speak at the conference, but declined. They instead sent the junior shadow farming minister, Daniel Zeichner. None agreed to speak to the Guardian about their farming policy. There is a feeling that Labour is sitting back and watching the Conservatives fail in this politically fraught sector. Batters implied she did not trust Starmer or Sunak to protect British standards. “Oh gosh, trust is a big word,” she said, adding that Sunak was a huge improvement on former prime ministers Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who wanted to liberalise trade policy, which would have undercut British farmers. She is watching to see if Sunak puts core trading standards – that is, not accepting food produced to vastly inferior standards – in the Conservative manifesto. “Really, the Conservatives have to be very, very clear at the next election that they will introduce the Core Standards standard,” she said. Meanwhile, she is not entirely sure what Labour’s plans are. “With Starmer, I’m not yet sure what their trade policy is, if I’m honest, and therein lies another challenge. Labour must have policies. They have no trade policy that they have shared publicly.” Henry Morton, an arable farmer, seemed unconvinced by Sunak’s warm words: “Well, he needs our votes doesn’t he,” he said. “I think he did all right. He’s obviously out there to get as many votes as possible from the farmers but he said some positive things.” Colin Rayner, who farms in Windsor, is a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative but thinks there is nothing Sunak can do to win the farming vote. He said: “I don’t know if farmers will vote Labour – I think they will stay at home and not vote.” The Brexit trade deals and phaseout of EU farming payments had left farmers mistrustful of Conservatives, he said, and they may not gain that trust back “for a generation”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Martin Cockerill, a Yorkshire farmer, was cautiously optimistic about what Sunak said: “I think the realisation that food security is important is finally emerging and he spoke to that. But farming is still not treated as important by politicians in England.” He seemed pleased that Sunak had talked up his rural background. “He mentioned his neighbour who has a pig farm, and that was striking, that he actually speaks to his neighbour who’s a pig farmer.” Labour has also chosen to fight on areas that could ignite culture wars and ruffle feathers in the rural community, promising to end the badger cull and end trail hunting, the replacement for foxhunting in which hounds chase a scent rather than a fox. The right-wing press has already accused Labour of “class war” and a “new foxhunting row”. The Welsh Labour party has also been facing protests from farmers, and Batters has accused the leadership of stealing the future of farmers by forcing them to plant 10% of their land with trees to receive public funding. I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference Read more Farmers do seem to warm to Starmer more than Sunak. The Labour leader received a warm welcome at the NFU conference last year and Batters said Sunak was “picking up a lot of legacy” from Truss and Johnson, who were widely regarded as having betrayed rural workers. But Perkin Evans, a Welsh farmer, told the Guardian: “Look at what’s happened in Wales. There are fears among English farmers that as soon as Starmer gets in, he will cut the farming payments budget.” Perhaps that need for caution is why Labour politicians have remained so quiet around the flagship farming conference: the rural vote may be up for grabs but there is plenty of anger in these forgotten communities that is ready to ignite. Explore more on these topics Farming Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour Keir Starmer Rural affairs analysis Share Reuse this content Farmers often feel ignored by Westminster politicians. Now, however, as a general election heaves slowly into view and the fight for the rural vote begins, it was not a huge surprise when the prime minister, Rishi Sunak , turned up at their annual conference. Sunak told farmers: “I have your back” and waxed nostalgic about the bucolic British countryside and his experience milking a cow. But after years of very unpopular post-Brexit trade deals and a bungled agricultural transition from EU farming payments, it didn’t feel like this charm offensive landed. The response from the farmers in the hall was muted at best. Minette Batters, the outgoing president of the NFU, gave both barrels in her speech immediately before Sunak on the “morally bankrupt” decisions made by Conservatives over recent years. She seemed also to take Sunak’s proclamations of love for the British farming sector with a pinch of salt. It’s no surprise to see the Tories turning up here. Farmers have long been one of the most stalwart cores of the rural conservative vote, but recent polling by the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats, but they face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. The loss of votes among farmers was a factor behind three byelection losses – North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, and Somerton and Frome – to the Liberal Democrats. The big question at the conference, however, was why Labour had put in such a low-key showing. Sir Keir Starmer and the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, were invited to speak at the conference, but declined. They instead sent the junior shadow farming minister, Daniel Zeichner. None agreed to speak to the Guardian about their farming policy. There is a feeling that Labour is sitting back and watching the Conservatives fail in this politically fraught sector. Batters implied she did not trust Starmer or Sunak to protect British standards. “Oh gosh, trust is a big word,” she said, adding that Sunak was a huge improvement on former prime ministers Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who wanted to liberalise trade policy, which would have undercut British farmers. She is watching to see if Sunak puts core trading standards – that is, not accepting food produced to vastly inferior standards – in the Conservative manifesto. “Really, the Conservatives have to be very, very clear at the next election that they will introduce the Core Standards standard,” she said. Meanwhile, she is not entirely sure what Labour’s plans are. “With Starmer, I’m not yet sure what their trade policy is, if I’m honest, and therein lies another challenge. Labour must have policies. They have no trade policy that they have shared publicly.” Henry Morton, an arable farmer, seemed unconvinced by Sunak’s warm words: “Well, he needs our votes doesn’t he,” he said. “I think he did all right. He’s obviously out there to get as many votes as possible from the farmers but he said some positive things.” Colin Rayner, who farms in Windsor, is a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative but thinks there is nothing Sunak can do to win the farming vote. He said: “I don’t know if farmers will vote Labour – I think they will stay at home and not vote.” The Brexit trade deals and phaseout of EU farming payments had left farmers mistrustful of Conservatives, he said, and they may not gain that trust back “for a generation”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Martin Cockerill, a Yorkshire farmer, was cautiously optimistic about what Sunak said: “I think the realisation that food security is important is finally emerging and he spoke to that. But farming is still not treated as important by politicians in England.” He seemed pleased that Sunak had talked up his rural background. “He mentioned his neighbour who has a pig farm, and that was striking, that he actually speaks to his neighbour who’s a pig farmer.” Labour has also chosen to fight on areas that could ignite culture wars and ruffle feathers in the rural community, promising to end the badger cull and end trail hunting, the replacement for foxhunting in which hounds chase a scent rather than a fox. The right-wing press has already accused Labour of “class war” and a “new foxhunting row”. The Welsh Labour party has also been facing protests from farmers, and Batters has accused the leadership of stealing the future of farmers by forcing them to plant 10% of their land with trees to receive public funding. I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference Read more Farmers do seem to warm to Starmer more than Sunak. The Labour leader received a warm welcome at the NFU conference last year and Batters said Sunak was “picking up a lot of legacy” from Truss and Johnson, who were widely regarded as having betrayed rural workers. But Perkin Evans, a Welsh farmer, told the Guardian: “Look at what’s happened in Wales. There are fears among English farmers that as soon as Starmer gets in, he will cut the farming payments budget.” Perhaps that need for caution is why Labour politicians have remained so quiet around the flagship farming conference: the rural vote may be up for grabs but there is plenty of anger in these forgotten communities that is ready to ignite. Farmers often feel ignored by Westminster politicians. Now, however, as a general election heaves slowly into view and the fight for the rural vote begins, it was not a huge surprise when the prime minister, Rishi Sunak , turned up at their annual conference. Sunak told farmers: “I have your back” and waxed nostalgic about the bucolic British countryside and his experience milking a cow. But after years of very unpopular post-Brexit trade deals and a bungled agricultural transition from EU farming payments, it didn’t feel like this charm offensive landed. The response from the farmers in the hall was muted at best. Minette Batters, the outgoing president of the NFU, gave both barrels in her speech immediately before Sunak on the “morally bankrupt” decisions made by Conservatives over recent years. She seemed also to take Sunak’s proclamations of love for the British farming sector with a pinch of salt. It’s no surprise to see the Tories turning up here. Farmers have long been one of the most stalwart cores of the rural conservative vote, but recent polling by the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats, but they face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. The loss of votes among farmers was a factor behind three byelection losses – North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, and Somerton and Frome – to the Liberal Democrats. The big question at the conference, however, was why Labour had put in such a low-key showing. Sir Keir Starmer and the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, were invited to speak at the conference, but declined. They instead sent the junior shadow farming minister, Daniel Zeichner. None agreed to speak to the Guardian about their farming policy. There is a feeling that Labour is sitting back and watching the Conservatives fail in this politically fraught sector. Batters implied she did not trust Starmer or Sunak to protect British standards. “Oh gosh, trust is a big word,” she said, adding that Sunak was a huge improvement on former prime ministers Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who wanted to liberalise trade policy, which would have undercut British farmers. She is watching to see if Sunak puts core trading standards – that is, not accepting food produced to vastly inferior standards – in the Conservative manifesto. “Really, the Conservatives have to be very, very clear at the next election that they will introduce the Core Standards standard,” she said. Meanwhile, she is not entirely sure what Labour’s plans are. “With Starmer, I’m not yet sure what their trade policy is, if I’m honest, and therein lies another challenge. Labour must have policies. They have no trade policy that they have shared publicly.” Henry Morton, an arable farmer, seemed unconvinced by Sunak’s warm words: “Well, he needs our votes doesn’t he,” he said. “I think he did all right. He’s obviously out there to get as many votes as possible from the farmers but he said some positive things.” Colin Rayner, who farms in Windsor, is a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative but thinks there is nothing Sunak can do to win the farming vote. He said: “I don’t know if farmers will vote Labour – I think they will stay at home and not vote.” The Brexit trade deals and phaseout of EU farming payments had left farmers mistrustful of Conservatives, he said, and they may not gain that trust back “for a generation”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Martin Cockerill, a Yorkshire farmer, was cautiously optimistic about what Sunak said: “I think the realisation that food security is important is finally emerging and he spoke to that. But farming is still not treated as important by politicians in England.” He seemed pleased that Sunak had talked up his rural background. “He mentioned his neighbour who has a pig farm, and that was striking, that he actually speaks to his neighbour who’s a pig farmer.” Labour has also chosen to fight on areas that could ignite culture wars and ruffle feathers in the rural community, promising to end the badger cull and end trail hunting, the replacement for foxhunting in which hounds chase a scent rather than a fox. The right-wing press has already accused Labour of “class war” and a “new foxhunting row”. The Welsh Labour party has also been facing protests from farmers, and Batters has accused the leadership of stealing the future of farmers by forcing them to plant 10% of their land with trees to receive public funding. I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference Read more Farmers do seem to warm to Starmer more than Sunak. The Labour leader received a warm welcome at the NFU conference last year and Batters said Sunak was “picking up a lot of legacy” from Truss and Johnson, who were widely regarded as having betrayed rural workers. But Perkin Evans, a Welsh farmer, told the Guardian: “Look at what’s happened in Wales. There are fears among English farmers that as soon as Starmer gets in, he will cut the farming payments budget.” Perhaps that need for caution is why Labour politicians have remained so quiet around the flagship farming conference: the rural vote may be up for grabs but there is plenty of anger in these forgotten communities that is ready to ignite. Farmers often feel ignored by Westminster politicians. Now, however, as a general election heaves slowly into view and the fight for the rural vote begins, it was not a huge surprise when the prime minister, Rishi Sunak , turned up at their annual conference. Sunak told farmers: “I have your back” and waxed nostalgic about the bucolic British countryside and his experience milking a cow. But after years of very unpopular post-Brexit trade deals and a bungled agricultural transition from EU farming payments, it didn’t feel like this charm offensive landed. The response from the farmers in the hall was muted at best. Minette Batters, the outgoing president of the NFU, gave both barrels in her speech immediately before Sunak on the “morally bankrupt” decisions made by Conservatives over recent years. She seemed also to take Sunak’s proclamations of love for the British farming sector with a pinch of salt. It’s no surprise to see the Tories turning up here. Farmers have long been one of the most stalwart cores of the rural conservative vote, but recent polling by the Country Land and Business Association found that people in rural areas are defecting to Labour in huge numbers, with the party’s share of the vote having climbed to 37%, up 17 points on the 2019 general election result, and the Conservatives’ share falling 25 points to 34%. The Conservatives hold 96 of the 100 most rural seats, but they face losing more than half to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, including those of Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt and Thérèse Coffey. The loss of votes among farmers was a factor behind three byelection losses – North Shropshire, Tiverton and Honiton, and Somerton and Frome – to the Liberal Democrats. The big question at the conference, however, was why Labour had put in such a low-key showing. Sir Keir Starmer and the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, were invited to speak at the conference, but declined. They instead sent the junior shadow farming minister, Daniel Zeichner. None agreed to speak to the Guardian about their farming policy. There is a feeling that Labour is sitting back and watching the Conservatives fail in this politically fraught sector. Batters implied she did not trust Starmer or Sunak to protect British standards. “Oh gosh, trust is a big word,” she said, adding that Sunak was a huge improvement on former prime ministers Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who wanted to liberalise trade policy, which would have undercut British farmers. She is watching to see if Sunak puts core trading standards – that is, not accepting food produced to vastly inferior standards – in the Conservative manifesto. “Really, the Conservatives have to be very, very clear at the next election that they will introduce the Core Standards standard,” she said. Meanwhile, she is not entirely sure what Labour’s plans are. “With Starmer, I’m not yet sure what their trade policy is, if I’m honest, and therein lies another challenge. Labour must have policies. They have no trade policy that they have shared publicly.” Henry Morton, an arable farmer, seemed unconvinced by Sunak’s warm words: “Well, he needs our votes doesn’t he,” he said. “I think he did all right. He’s obviously out there to get as many votes as possible from the farmers but he said some positive things.” Colin Rayner, who farms in Windsor, is a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative but thinks there is nothing Sunak can do to win the farming vote. He said: “I don’t know if farmers will vote Labour – I think they will stay at home and not vote.” The Brexit trade deals and phaseout of EU farming payments had left farmers mistrustful of Conservatives, he said, and they may not gain that trust back “for a generation”. Martin Cockerill, a Yorkshire farmer, was cautiously optimistic about what Sunak said: “I think the realisation that food security is important is finally emerging and he spoke to that. But farming is still not treated as important by politicians in England.” He seemed pleased that Sunak had talked up his rural background. “He mentioned his neighbour who has a pig farm, and that was striking, that he actually speaks to his neighbour who’s a pig farmer.” Labour has also chosen to fight on areas that could ignite culture wars and ruffle feathers in the rural community, promising to end the badger cull and end trail hunting, the replacement for foxhunting in which hounds chase a scent rather than a fox. The right-wing press has already accused Labour of “class war” and a “new foxhunting row”. The Welsh Labour party has also been facing protests from farmers, and Batters has accused the leadership of stealing the future of farmers by forcing them to plant 10% of their land with trees to receive public funding. I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference Read more I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference Read more I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference Read more I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference I have your back, Rishi Sunak tells farmers at NFU conference Farmers do seem to warm to Starmer more than Sunak. The Labour leader received a warm welcome at the NFU conference last year and Batters said Sunak was “picking up a lot of legacy” from Truss and Johnson, who were widely regarded as having betrayed rural workers. But Perkin Evans, a Welsh farmer, told the Guardian: “Look at what’s happened in Wales. There are fears among English farmers that as soon as Starmer gets in, he will cut the farming payments budget.” Perhaps that need for caution is why Labour politicians have remained so quiet around the flagship farming conference: the rural vote may be up for grabs but there is plenty of anger in these forgotten communities that is ready to ignite. Explore more on these topics Farming Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour Keir Starmer Rural affairs analysis Share Reuse this content Farming Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour Keir Starmer Rural affairs analysis |
‘Common practice’ to take leftovers, says cleaner sacked over tuna sandwich
Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘Common practice’ to take leftovers, says cleaner sacked over tuna sandwich This article is more than 1 year old Gabriela Rodriguez, who is taking former employer to tribunal, thanks trade union for its support The cleaner sacked for taking a discarded £1.50 tuna sandwich from a meeting room at a top City law firm has said it was “common practice” for staff to take leftovers for their own lunches. Gabriela Rodriguez was let go by contractor Total Clean for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse” after she was accused of taking a sandwich from the offices of Devonshires Solicitors from a platter after a meeting. She said she had been “thankful” for the protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World (UVW) union, and is overwhelmed by the widespread public outrage. “I feel listened to, protected and supported, and I’m thankful because the union has poured themselves on to this situation to support me,” Rodriguez said. She added: “On a normal day some sandwiches were left in the canteen after meetings of lawyers; it was a common practice for people to help themselves for lunchtime. “It was almost at the end of my shift – quarter to two in the afternoon – and I took one and put it in the fridge. “A week later, I was called 15 minutes before the end of my shift. I was then suspended without pay pending further investigation.” The UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was discriminatory and is taking Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Rodriguez intends to study English and complete a health and social care university qualification. She now feels a duty to “work like crazy” to support her 10-year-old daughter and her elderly mother due to the rising cost of living. Ecuadorian-born Rodriguez, who has Spanish citizenship, has lived in London since 2008, having been a human resources administrator at a big corporation in Spain. Since the tuna affair, she has been working as a cleaner in other office spaces. She still sees England as a “land for opportunity”, she said. Rodriguez currently works from the morning until late evening with a “small gap” at 3pm. Her mother helps her with childcare but that has not prevented her from dreaming of overcoming what she describes as a “temporary” situation. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I have to work really hard as a single mother,” she said. “I am indignant about the way they have treated me. People are too scared, they have fear [and] don’t look for help. “Because they don’t join a union, they have left their job when they have been treated badly and … there has been no punishment for treating people like this. I told myself I’m not going to be like that – I’m going to speak up and this is my right.” A Total Clean spokesperson said the company would be making no further comment on the matter. Devonshires Solicitors said it had not made a formal complaint against Rodriguez and had expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. The firm would not object to Rodriguez working on its premises if Total Clean changes its position, a spokesperson said. Explore more on these topics Employment tribunals London Work & careers news Share Reuse this content Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘Common practice’ to take leftovers, says cleaner sacked over tuna sandwich This article is more than 1 year old Gabriela Rodriguez, who is taking former employer to tribunal, thanks trade union for its support The cleaner sacked for taking a discarded £1.50 tuna sandwich from a meeting room at a top City law firm has said it was “common practice” for staff to take leftovers for their own lunches. Gabriela Rodriguez was let go by contractor Total Clean for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse” after she was accused of taking a sandwich from the offices of Devonshires Solicitors from a platter after a meeting. She said she had been “thankful” for the protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World (UVW) union, and is overwhelmed by the widespread public outrage. “I feel listened to, protected and supported, and I’m thankful because the union has poured themselves on to this situation to support me,” Rodriguez said. She added: “On a normal day some sandwiches were left in the canteen after meetings of lawyers; it was a common practice for people to help themselves for lunchtime. “It was almost at the end of my shift – quarter to two in the afternoon – and I took one and put it in the fridge. “A week later, I was called 15 minutes before the end of my shift. I was then suspended without pay pending further investigation.” The UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was discriminatory and is taking Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Rodriguez intends to study English and complete a health and social care university qualification. She now feels a duty to “work like crazy” to support her 10-year-old daughter and her elderly mother due to the rising cost of living. Ecuadorian-born Rodriguez, who has Spanish citizenship, has lived in London since 2008, having been a human resources administrator at a big corporation in Spain. Since the tuna affair, she has been working as a cleaner in other office spaces. She still sees England as a “land for opportunity”, she said. Rodriguez currently works from the morning until late evening with a “small gap” at 3pm. Her mother helps her with childcare but that has not prevented her from dreaming of overcoming what she describes as a “temporary” situation. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I have to work really hard as a single mother,” she said. “I am indignant about the way they have treated me. People are too scared, they have fear [and] don’t look for help. “Because they don’t join a union, they have left their job when they have been treated badly and … there has been no punishment for treating people like this. I told myself I’m not going to be like that – I’m going to speak up and this is my right.” A Total Clean spokesperson said the company would be making no further comment on the matter. Devonshires Solicitors said it had not made a formal complaint against Rodriguez and had expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. The firm would not object to Rodriguez working on its premises if Total Clean changes its position, a spokesperson said. Explore more on these topics Employment tribunals London Work & careers news Share Reuse this content Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian Gabriela Rodriguez said she was ‘thankful’ for protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World union. Photograph: David Levene/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘Common practice’ to take leftovers, says cleaner sacked over tuna sandwich This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Common practice’ to take leftovers, says cleaner sacked over tuna sandwich This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Common practice’ to take leftovers, says cleaner sacked over tuna sandwich This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Gabriela Rodriguez, who is taking former employer to tribunal, thanks trade union for its support Gabriela Rodriguez, who is taking former employer to tribunal, thanks trade union for its support Gabriela Rodriguez, who is taking former employer to tribunal, thanks trade union for its support The cleaner sacked for taking a discarded £1.50 tuna sandwich from a meeting room at a top City law firm has said it was “common practice” for staff to take leftovers for their own lunches. Gabriela Rodriguez was let go by contractor Total Clean for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse” after she was accused of taking a sandwich from the offices of Devonshires Solicitors from a platter after a meeting. She said she had been “thankful” for the protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World (UVW) union, and is overwhelmed by the widespread public outrage. “I feel listened to, protected and supported, and I’m thankful because the union has poured themselves on to this situation to support me,” Rodriguez said. She added: “On a normal day some sandwiches were left in the canteen after meetings of lawyers; it was a common practice for people to help themselves for lunchtime. “It was almost at the end of my shift – quarter to two in the afternoon – and I took one and put it in the fridge. “A week later, I was called 15 minutes before the end of my shift. I was then suspended without pay pending further investigation.” The UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was discriminatory and is taking Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Rodriguez intends to study English and complete a health and social care university qualification. She now feels a duty to “work like crazy” to support her 10-year-old daughter and her elderly mother due to the rising cost of living. Ecuadorian-born Rodriguez, who has Spanish citizenship, has lived in London since 2008, having been a human resources administrator at a big corporation in Spain. Since the tuna affair, she has been working as a cleaner in other office spaces. She still sees England as a “land for opportunity”, she said. Rodriguez currently works from the morning until late evening with a “small gap” at 3pm. Her mother helps her with childcare but that has not prevented her from dreaming of overcoming what she describes as a “temporary” situation. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I have to work really hard as a single mother,” she said. “I am indignant about the way they have treated me. People are too scared, they have fear [and] don’t look for help. “Because they don’t join a union, they have left their job when they have been treated badly and … there has been no punishment for treating people like this. I told myself I’m not going to be like that – I’m going to speak up and this is my right.” A Total Clean spokesperson said the company would be making no further comment on the matter. Devonshires Solicitors said it had not made a formal complaint against Rodriguez and had expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. The firm would not object to Rodriguez working on its premises if Total Clean changes its position, a spokesperson said. Explore more on these topics Employment tribunals London Work & careers news Share Reuse this content The cleaner sacked for taking a discarded £1.50 tuna sandwich from a meeting room at a top City law firm has said it was “common practice” for staff to take leftovers for their own lunches. Gabriela Rodriguez was let go by contractor Total Clean for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse” after she was accused of taking a sandwich from the offices of Devonshires Solicitors from a platter after a meeting. She said she had been “thankful” for the protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World (UVW) union, and is overwhelmed by the widespread public outrage. “I feel listened to, protected and supported, and I’m thankful because the union has poured themselves on to this situation to support me,” Rodriguez said. She added: “On a normal day some sandwiches were left in the canteen after meetings of lawyers; it was a common practice for people to help themselves for lunchtime. “It was almost at the end of my shift – quarter to two in the afternoon – and I took one and put it in the fridge. “A week later, I was called 15 minutes before the end of my shift. I was then suspended without pay pending further investigation.” The UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was discriminatory and is taking Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Rodriguez intends to study English and complete a health and social care university qualification. She now feels a duty to “work like crazy” to support her 10-year-old daughter and her elderly mother due to the rising cost of living. Ecuadorian-born Rodriguez, who has Spanish citizenship, has lived in London since 2008, having been a human resources administrator at a big corporation in Spain. Since the tuna affair, she has been working as a cleaner in other office spaces. She still sees England as a “land for opportunity”, she said. Rodriguez currently works from the morning until late evening with a “small gap” at 3pm. Her mother helps her with childcare but that has not prevented her from dreaming of overcoming what she describes as a “temporary” situation. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I have to work really hard as a single mother,” she said. “I am indignant about the way they have treated me. People are too scared, they have fear [and] don’t look for help. “Because they don’t join a union, they have left their job when they have been treated badly and … there has been no punishment for treating people like this. I told myself I’m not going to be like that – I’m going to speak up and this is my right.” A Total Clean spokesperson said the company would be making no further comment on the matter. Devonshires Solicitors said it had not made a formal complaint against Rodriguez and had expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. The firm would not object to Rodriguez working on its premises if Total Clean changes its position, a spokesperson said. Explore more on these topics Employment tribunals London Work & careers news Share Reuse this content The cleaner sacked for taking a discarded £1.50 tuna sandwich from a meeting room at a top City law firm has said it was “common practice” for staff to take leftovers for their own lunches. Gabriela Rodriguez was let go by contractor Total Clean for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse” after she was accused of taking a sandwich from the offices of Devonshires Solicitors from a platter after a meeting. She said she had been “thankful” for the protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World (UVW) union, and is overwhelmed by the widespread public outrage. “I feel listened to, protected and supported, and I’m thankful because the union has poured themselves on to this situation to support me,” Rodriguez said. She added: “On a normal day some sandwiches were left in the canteen after meetings of lawyers; it was a common practice for people to help themselves for lunchtime. “It was almost at the end of my shift – quarter to two in the afternoon – and I took one and put it in the fridge. “A week later, I was called 15 minutes before the end of my shift. I was then suspended without pay pending further investigation.” The UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was discriminatory and is taking Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Rodriguez intends to study English and complete a health and social care university qualification. She now feels a duty to “work like crazy” to support her 10-year-old daughter and her elderly mother due to the rising cost of living. Ecuadorian-born Rodriguez, who has Spanish citizenship, has lived in London since 2008, having been a human resources administrator at a big corporation in Spain. Since the tuna affair, she has been working as a cleaner in other office spaces. She still sees England as a “land for opportunity”, she said. Rodriguez currently works from the morning until late evening with a “small gap” at 3pm. Her mother helps her with childcare but that has not prevented her from dreaming of overcoming what she describes as a “temporary” situation. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I have to work really hard as a single mother,” she said. “I am indignant about the way they have treated me. People are too scared, they have fear [and] don’t look for help. “Because they don’t join a union, they have left their job when they have been treated badly and … there has been no punishment for treating people like this. I told myself I’m not going to be like that – I’m going to speak up and this is my right.” A Total Clean spokesperson said the company would be making no further comment on the matter. Devonshires Solicitors said it had not made a formal complaint against Rodriguez and had expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. The firm would not object to Rodriguez working on its premises if Total Clean changes its position, a spokesperson said. The cleaner sacked for taking a discarded £1.50 tuna sandwich from a meeting room at a top City law firm has said it was “common practice” for staff to take leftovers for their own lunches. Gabriela Rodriguez was let go by contractor Total Clean for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse” after she was accused of taking a sandwich from the offices of Devonshires Solicitors from a platter after a meeting. She said she had been “thankful” for the protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World (UVW) union, and is overwhelmed by the widespread public outrage. “I feel listened to, protected and supported, and I’m thankful because the union has poured themselves on to this situation to support me,” Rodriguez said. She added: “On a normal day some sandwiches were left in the canteen after meetings of lawyers; it was a common practice for people to help themselves for lunchtime. “It was almost at the end of my shift – quarter to two in the afternoon – and I took one and put it in the fridge. “A week later, I was called 15 minutes before the end of my shift. I was then suspended without pay pending further investigation.” The UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was discriminatory and is taking Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Rodriguez intends to study English and complete a health and social care university qualification. She now feels a duty to “work like crazy” to support her 10-year-old daughter and her elderly mother due to the rising cost of living. Ecuadorian-born Rodriguez, who has Spanish citizenship, has lived in London since 2008, having been a human resources administrator at a big corporation in Spain. Since the tuna affair, she has been working as a cleaner in other office spaces. She still sees England as a “land for opportunity”, she said. Rodriguez currently works from the morning until late evening with a “small gap” at 3pm. Her mother helps her with childcare but that has not prevented her from dreaming of overcoming what she describes as a “temporary” situation. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I have to work really hard as a single mother,” she said. “I am indignant about the way they have treated me. People are too scared, they have fear [and] don’t look for help. “Because they don’t join a union, they have left their job when they have been treated badly and … there has been no punishment for treating people like this. I told myself I’m not going to be like that – I’m going to speak up and this is my right.” A Total Clean spokesperson said the company would be making no further comment on the matter. Devonshires Solicitors said it had not made a formal complaint against Rodriguez and had expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. The firm would not object to Rodriguez working on its premises if Total Clean changes its position, a spokesperson said. The cleaner sacked for taking a discarded £1.50 tuna sandwich from a meeting room at a top City law firm has said it was “common practice” for staff to take leftovers for their own lunches. Gabriela Rodriguez was let go by contractor Total Clean for taking “client property … without authority or reasonable excuse” after she was accused of taking a sandwich from the offices of Devonshires Solicitors from a platter after a meeting. She said she had been “thankful” for the protests on her behalf by the United Voices of the World (UVW) union, and is overwhelmed by the widespread public outrage. “I feel listened to, protected and supported, and I’m thankful because the union has poured themselves on to this situation to support me,” Rodriguez said. She added: “On a normal day some sandwiches were left in the canteen after meetings of lawyers; it was a common practice for people to help themselves for lunchtime. “It was almost at the end of my shift – quarter to two in the afternoon – and I took one and put it in the fridge. “A week later, I was called 15 minutes before the end of my shift. I was then suspended without pay pending further investigation.” The UVW contends that the request for Rodriguez’s removal from the site was discriminatory and is taking Total Clean and Devonshires Solicitors to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal. Rodriguez intends to study English and complete a health and social care university qualification. She now feels a duty to “work like crazy” to support her 10-year-old daughter and her elderly mother due to the rising cost of living. Ecuadorian-born Rodriguez, who has Spanish citizenship, has lived in London since 2008, having been a human resources administrator at a big corporation in Spain. Since the tuna affair, she has been working as a cleaner in other office spaces. She still sees England as a “land for opportunity”, she said. Rodriguez currently works from the morning until late evening with a “small gap” at 3pm. Her mother helps her with childcare but that has not prevented her from dreaming of overcoming what she describes as a “temporary” situation. “I have to work really hard as a single mother,” she said. “I am indignant about the way they have treated me. People are too scared, they have fear [and] don’t look for help. “Because they don’t join a union, they have left their job when they have been treated badly and … there has been no punishment for treating people like this. I told myself I’m not going to be like that – I’m going to speak up and this is my right.” A Total Clean spokesperson said the company would be making no further comment on the matter. Devonshires Solicitors said it had not made a formal complaint against Rodriguez and had expressly told Total Clean not to take any action against her. The firm would not object to Rodriguez working on its premises if Total Clean changes its position, a spokesperson said. Explore more on these topics Employment tribunals London Work & careers news Share Reuse this content Employment tribunals London Work & careers news |
Keir Starmer seeks to head off another Labour rebellion over Gaza ceasefire
The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Keir Starmer seeks to head off another Labour rebellion over Gaza ceasefire This article is more than 1 year old Crucial vote on party’s new call for ‘humanitarian ceasefire’ goes before MPs on Wednesday as thousands of protesters expected in Westminster What is Labour’s new position on Gaza ceasefire – and will it unite the party? Keir Starmer’s attempt to head off a damaging rebellion over Gaza was hanging by a thread last night, despite bowing to pressure by finally calling for an immediate ceasefire in the region. Labour explicitly backed an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” for the first time since fighting broke out in October, in a bid to ward off another party split in what is likely to be a tense Commons vote on Wednesday. The Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire has stoked divisions within the Labour party and outside, with several thousand protesters expected to march on Westminster just as the vote is called. Labour officials believed on Tuesday afternoon that they had successfully persuaded party rebels to vote for their carefully caveated amendment and abstain on the more blunt SNP motion. Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn Read more However, they believe that if the Commons Speaker chooses the government amendment ahead of the Labour one, it is likely to lead to a rebellion similar in scale to that seen last November, in which 56 Labour MPs sided with the SNP . A Labour source said: “Everything now rests with the Speaker. Our amendment should be enough to avoid another major rebellion on Gaza , but we’re not sure what MPs will do if it is not even called for a vote.” Labour’s position on the Middle East crisis has come under intense scrutiny since the war began, with many in the party accusing Starmer of reacting too slowly to events in the region and backing the Israeli government for too long. Party tensions came to a head last November when the SNP used the king’s speech debate to call for a vote on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. With Starmer concerned about not wanting to go further than either the British or American governments, his whips urged MPs to back a Labour motion calling instead for a “cessation of fighting”. This was not enough, however, to prevent dozens of MPs, including eight frontbenchers, siding with the SNP in what became the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Since then, many Labour MPs who remained loyal and abstained on the SNP amendment have been deluged by angry messages from constituents and activists demanding to know why they “voted against a ceasefire”. The SNP is seeking to reopen those wounds on Wednesday with a similarly worded motion calling once more for an immediate ceasefire. Once more Labour has published its own text which it wants MPs to back instead of the SNP motion. However, under heavy pressure from senior pro-Palestinian Labour MPs, the party is this time calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. The 237-word Labour amendment also calls for Israel not to invade the city of Rafah, for aid to be allowed to flow to Gaza, and for international countries to work towards a two-state solution. It stresses, however, that Israel cannot be expected to abide by a ceasefire if Hamas continues to threaten further violence. David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, told the BBC on Tuesday: “We have set down a motion calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. That is because the situation now in Gaza is intolerable, with the dramatic loss of life, with so many people facing starvation, and we are very clear that the Rafah offensive now being planned cannot go ahead. “This is a comprehensive motion, and it’s one that I hope that the whole house can now get behind.” But in a separate interview on LBC, he hinted the party would not back an unamended SNP motion. “The SNP motion calls for an immediate ceasefire,” he said. “It doesn’t speak to that ceasefire being lasting.” By Tuesday afternoon, the alternative Labour motion looked to have secured broad agreement even from many of those who rebelled in November. Clive Betts, one of those Labour rebels, told the BBC’s World at One: “It is a revised and good position. I don’t think anyone can see the horrors of what is happening now in Gaza and not want the fighting to stop and stop immediately. That is what the Labour motion says.” Hours later, however, the government published its own amendment, which also calls for a ceasefire but only once a long list of preconditions have been met. They include Hamas returning all hostages, that it cedes control in Gaza, that a new Palestinian government is formed and that there is a “credible pathway” to a two-state solution. The Commons Speaker will choose on Wednesday morning which amendment to call. Government sources insist that parliamentary precedent dictates that it should be theirs, but Labour officials say the Speaker should focus on which ones best allows the public’s views to be aired in the Commons. Many in the Labour party believe that if the Speaker chooses the government amendment, dozens of Labour MPs will vote instead for the SNP motion, in what would be another bruising rebuff to Starmer’s authority. One party source said: “This situation is so tense that an attempt to create party unity on it for the first time in months could genuinely be scuppered by obscure parliamentary processes.” Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales called for the fighting to end “as soon as possible” and for more humanitarian support for Gaza. Prince William issued a statement before carrying out visits to recognise the human suffering caused by conflict in the Middle East and the global rise in antisemitism. “I remain deeply concerned about the terrible human cost of the conflict in the Middle East since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7. Too many have been killed,” he said. “I, like so many others, want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible. There is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support to Gaza. It’s critical that aid gets in and the hostages are released. “Sometimes it is only when faced with the sheer scale of human suffering that the importance of permanent peace is brought home. “Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair. I continue to cling to the hope that a brighter future can be found and I refuse to give up on that.” Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy responded: “Israelis of course want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible, and that will be possible once the 134 hostages are released, and once the Hamas terror army threatening to repeat the 7 October atrocities is dismantled. “We appreciate the Prince of Wales’s call for Hamas to free the hostages. “We also recall with gratitude his statement from 11 October condemning Hamas’s terror attacks and reaffirming Israel’s right of self-defence against them.” Explore more on these topics Labour Israel-Gaza war Israel Gaza Palestine Keir Starmer Prince William news Share Reuse this content The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Keir Starmer seeks to head off another Labour rebellion over Gaza ceasefire This article is more than 1 year old Crucial vote on party’s new call for ‘humanitarian ceasefire’ goes before MPs on Wednesday as thousands of protesters expected in Westminster What is Labour’s new position on Gaza ceasefire – and will it unite the party? Keir Starmer’s attempt to head off a damaging rebellion over Gaza was hanging by a thread last night, despite bowing to pressure by finally calling for an immediate ceasefire in the region. Labour explicitly backed an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” for the first time since fighting broke out in October, in a bid to ward off another party split in what is likely to be a tense Commons vote on Wednesday. The Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire has stoked divisions within the Labour party and outside, with several thousand protesters expected to march on Westminster just as the vote is called. Labour officials believed on Tuesday afternoon that they had successfully persuaded party rebels to vote for their carefully caveated amendment and abstain on the more blunt SNP motion. Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn Read more However, they believe that if the Commons Speaker chooses the government amendment ahead of the Labour one, it is likely to lead to a rebellion similar in scale to that seen last November, in which 56 Labour MPs sided with the SNP . A Labour source said: “Everything now rests with the Speaker. Our amendment should be enough to avoid another major rebellion on Gaza , but we’re not sure what MPs will do if it is not even called for a vote.” Labour’s position on the Middle East crisis has come under intense scrutiny since the war began, with many in the party accusing Starmer of reacting too slowly to events in the region and backing the Israeli government for too long. Party tensions came to a head last November when the SNP used the king’s speech debate to call for a vote on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. With Starmer concerned about not wanting to go further than either the British or American governments, his whips urged MPs to back a Labour motion calling instead for a “cessation of fighting”. This was not enough, however, to prevent dozens of MPs, including eight frontbenchers, siding with the SNP in what became the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Since then, many Labour MPs who remained loyal and abstained on the SNP amendment have been deluged by angry messages from constituents and activists demanding to know why they “voted against a ceasefire”. The SNP is seeking to reopen those wounds on Wednesday with a similarly worded motion calling once more for an immediate ceasefire. Once more Labour has published its own text which it wants MPs to back instead of the SNP motion. However, under heavy pressure from senior pro-Palestinian Labour MPs, the party is this time calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. The 237-word Labour amendment also calls for Israel not to invade the city of Rafah, for aid to be allowed to flow to Gaza, and for international countries to work towards a two-state solution. It stresses, however, that Israel cannot be expected to abide by a ceasefire if Hamas continues to threaten further violence. David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, told the BBC on Tuesday: “We have set down a motion calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. That is because the situation now in Gaza is intolerable, with the dramatic loss of life, with so many people facing starvation, and we are very clear that the Rafah offensive now being planned cannot go ahead. “This is a comprehensive motion, and it’s one that I hope that the whole house can now get behind.” But in a separate interview on LBC, he hinted the party would not back an unamended SNP motion. “The SNP motion calls for an immediate ceasefire,” he said. “It doesn’t speak to that ceasefire being lasting.” By Tuesday afternoon, the alternative Labour motion looked to have secured broad agreement even from many of those who rebelled in November. Clive Betts, one of those Labour rebels, told the BBC’s World at One: “It is a revised and good position. I don’t think anyone can see the horrors of what is happening now in Gaza and not want the fighting to stop and stop immediately. That is what the Labour motion says.” Hours later, however, the government published its own amendment, which also calls for a ceasefire but only once a long list of preconditions have been met. They include Hamas returning all hostages, that it cedes control in Gaza, that a new Palestinian government is formed and that there is a “credible pathway” to a two-state solution. The Commons Speaker will choose on Wednesday morning which amendment to call. Government sources insist that parliamentary precedent dictates that it should be theirs, but Labour officials say the Speaker should focus on which ones best allows the public’s views to be aired in the Commons. Many in the Labour party believe that if the Speaker chooses the government amendment, dozens of Labour MPs will vote instead for the SNP motion, in what would be another bruising rebuff to Starmer’s authority. One party source said: “This situation is so tense that an attempt to create party unity on it for the first time in months could genuinely be scuppered by obscure parliamentary processes.” Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales called for the fighting to end “as soon as possible” and for more humanitarian support for Gaza. Prince William issued a statement before carrying out visits to recognise the human suffering caused by conflict in the Middle East and the global rise in antisemitism. “I remain deeply concerned about the terrible human cost of the conflict in the Middle East since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7. Too many have been killed,” he said. “I, like so many others, want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible. There is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support to Gaza. It’s critical that aid gets in and the hostages are released. “Sometimes it is only when faced with the sheer scale of human suffering that the importance of permanent peace is brought home. “Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair. I continue to cling to the hope that a brighter future can be found and I refuse to give up on that.” Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy responded: “Israelis of course want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible, and that will be possible once the 134 hostages are released, and once the Hamas terror army threatening to repeat the 7 October atrocities is dismantled. “We appreciate the Prince of Wales’s call for Hamas to free the hostages. “We also recall with gratitude his statement from 11 October condemning Hamas’s terror attacks and reaffirming Israel’s right of self-defence against them.” Explore more on these topics Labour Israel-Gaza war Israel Gaza Palestine Keir Starmer Prince William news Share Reuse this content The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian The Gaza ceasefire issue has become the biggest rebellion of Keir Starmer’s leadership. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Keir Starmer seeks to head off another Labour rebellion over Gaza ceasefire This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Keir Starmer seeks to head off another Labour rebellion over Gaza ceasefire This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Keir Starmer seeks to head off another Labour rebellion over Gaza ceasefire This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Crucial vote on party’s new call for ‘humanitarian ceasefire’ goes before MPs on Wednesday as thousands of protesters expected in Westminster What is Labour’s new position on Gaza ceasefire – and will it unite the party? Crucial vote on party’s new call for ‘humanitarian ceasefire’ goes before MPs on Wednesday as thousands of protesters expected in Westminster What is Labour’s new position on Gaza ceasefire – and will it unite the party? Crucial vote on party’s new call for ‘humanitarian ceasefire’ goes before MPs on Wednesday as thousands of protesters expected in Westminster Keir Starmer’s attempt to head off a damaging rebellion over Gaza was hanging by a thread last night, despite bowing to pressure by finally calling for an immediate ceasefire in the region. Labour explicitly backed an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” for the first time since fighting broke out in October, in a bid to ward off another party split in what is likely to be a tense Commons vote on Wednesday. The Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire has stoked divisions within the Labour party and outside, with several thousand protesters expected to march on Westminster just as the vote is called. Labour officials believed on Tuesday afternoon that they had successfully persuaded party rebels to vote for their carefully caveated amendment and abstain on the more blunt SNP motion. Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn Read more However, they believe that if the Commons Speaker chooses the government amendment ahead of the Labour one, it is likely to lead to a rebellion similar in scale to that seen last November, in which 56 Labour MPs sided with the SNP . A Labour source said: “Everything now rests with the Speaker. Our amendment should be enough to avoid another major rebellion on Gaza , but we’re not sure what MPs will do if it is not even called for a vote.” Labour’s position on the Middle East crisis has come under intense scrutiny since the war began, with many in the party accusing Starmer of reacting too slowly to events in the region and backing the Israeli government for too long. Party tensions came to a head last November when the SNP used the king’s speech debate to call for a vote on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. With Starmer concerned about not wanting to go further than either the British or American governments, his whips urged MPs to back a Labour motion calling instead for a “cessation of fighting”. This was not enough, however, to prevent dozens of MPs, including eight frontbenchers, siding with the SNP in what became the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Since then, many Labour MPs who remained loyal and abstained on the SNP amendment have been deluged by angry messages from constituents and activists demanding to know why they “voted against a ceasefire”. The SNP is seeking to reopen those wounds on Wednesday with a similarly worded motion calling once more for an immediate ceasefire. Once more Labour has published its own text which it wants MPs to back instead of the SNP motion. However, under heavy pressure from senior pro-Palestinian Labour MPs, the party is this time calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. The 237-word Labour amendment also calls for Israel not to invade the city of Rafah, for aid to be allowed to flow to Gaza, and for international countries to work towards a two-state solution. It stresses, however, that Israel cannot be expected to abide by a ceasefire if Hamas continues to threaten further violence. David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, told the BBC on Tuesday: “We have set down a motion calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. That is because the situation now in Gaza is intolerable, with the dramatic loss of life, with so many people facing starvation, and we are very clear that the Rafah offensive now being planned cannot go ahead. “This is a comprehensive motion, and it’s one that I hope that the whole house can now get behind.” But in a separate interview on LBC, he hinted the party would not back an unamended SNP motion. “The SNP motion calls for an immediate ceasefire,” he said. “It doesn’t speak to that ceasefire being lasting.” By Tuesday afternoon, the alternative Labour motion looked to have secured broad agreement even from many of those who rebelled in November. Clive Betts, one of those Labour rebels, told the BBC’s World at One: “It is a revised and good position. I don’t think anyone can see the horrors of what is happening now in Gaza and not want the fighting to stop and stop immediately. That is what the Labour motion says.” Hours later, however, the government published its own amendment, which also calls for a ceasefire but only once a long list of preconditions have been met. They include Hamas returning all hostages, that it cedes control in Gaza, that a new Palestinian government is formed and that there is a “credible pathway” to a two-state solution. The Commons Speaker will choose on Wednesday morning which amendment to call. Government sources insist that parliamentary precedent dictates that it should be theirs, but Labour officials say the Speaker should focus on which ones best allows the public’s views to be aired in the Commons. Many in the Labour party believe that if the Speaker chooses the government amendment, dozens of Labour MPs will vote instead for the SNP motion, in what would be another bruising rebuff to Starmer’s authority. One party source said: “This situation is so tense that an attempt to create party unity on it for the first time in months could genuinely be scuppered by obscure parliamentary processes.” Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales called for the fighting to end “as soon as possible” and for more humanitarian support for Gaza. Prince William issued a statement before carrying out visits to recognise the human suffering caused by conflict in the Middle East and the global rise in antisemitism. “I remain deeply concerned about the terrible human cost of the conflict in the Middle East since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7. Too many have been killed,” he said. “I, like so many others, want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible. There is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support to Gaza. It’s critical that aid gets in and the hostages are released. “Sometimes it is only when faced with the sheer scale of human suffering that the importance of permanent peace is brought home. “Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair. I continue to cling to the hope that a brighter future can be found and I refuse to give up on that.” Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy responded: “Israelis of course want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible, and that will be possible once the 134 hostages are released, and once the Hamas terror army threatening to repeat the 7 October atrocities is dismantled. “We appreciate the Prince of Wales’s call for Hamas to free the hostages. “We also recall with gratitude his statement from 11 October condemning Hamas’s terror attacks and reaffirming Israel’s right of self-defence against them.” Explore more on these topics Labour Israel-Gaza war Israel Gaza Palestine Keir Starmer Prince William news Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer’s attempt to head off a damaging rebellion over Gaza was hanging by a thread last night, despite bowing to pressure by finally calling for an immediate ceasefire in the region. Labour explicitly backed an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” for the first time since fighting broke out in October, in a bid to ward off another party split in what is likely to be a tense Commons vote on Wednesday. The Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire has stoked divisions within the Labour party and outside, with several thousand protesters expected to march on Westminster just as the vote is called. Labour officials believed on Tuesday afternoon that they had successfully persuaded party rebels to vote for their carefully caveated amendment and abstain on the more blunt SNP motion. Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn Read more However, they believe that if the Commons Speaker chooses the government amendment ahead of the Labour one, it is likely to lead to a rebellion similar in scale to that seen last November, in which 56 Labour MPs sided with the SNP . A Labour source said: “Everything now rests with the Speaker. Our amendment should be enough to avoid another major rebellion on Gaza , but we’re not sure what MPs will do if it is not even called for a vote.” Labour’s position on the Middle East crisis has come under intense scrutiny since the war began, with many in the party accusing Starmer of reacting too slowly to events in the region and backing the Israeli government for too long. Party tensions came to a head last November when the SNP used the king’s speech debate to call for a vote on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. With Starmer concerned about not wanting to go further than either the British or American governments, his whips urged MPs to back a Labour motion calling instead for a “cessation of fighting”. This was not enough, however, to prevent dozens of MPs, including eight frontbenchers, siding with the SNP in what became the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Since then, many Labour MPs who remained loyal and abstained on the SNP amendment have been deluged by angry messages from constituents and activists demanding to know why they “voted against a ceasefire”. The SNP is seeking to reopen those wounds on Wednesday with a similarly worded motion calling once more for an immediate ceasefire. Once more Labour has published its own text which it wants MPs to back instead of the SNP motion. However, under heavy pressure from senior pro-Palestinian Labour MPs, the party is this time calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. The 237-word Labour amendment also calls for Israel not to invade the city of Rafah, for aid to be allowed to flow to Gaza, and for international countries to work towards a two-state solution. It stresses, however, that Israel cannot be expected to abide by a ceasefire if Hamas continues to threaten further violence. David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, told the BBC on Tuesday: “We have set down a motion calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. That is because the situation now in Gaza is intolerable, with the dramatic loss of life, with so many people facing starvation, and we are very clear that the Rafah offensive now being planned cannot go ahead. “This is a comprehensive motion, and it’s one that I hope that the whole house can now get behind.” But in a separate interview on LBC, he hinted the party would not back an unamended SNP motion. “The SNP motion calls for an immediate ceasefire,” he said. “It doesn’t speak to that ceasefire being lasting.” By Tuesday afternoon, the alternative Labour motion looked to have secured broad agreement even from many of those who rebelled in November. Clive Betts, one of those Labour rebels, told the BBC’s World at One: “It is a revised and good position. I don’t think anyone can see the horrors of what is happening now in Gaza and not want the fighting to stop and stop immediately. That is what the Labour motion says.” Hours later, however, the government published its own amendment, which also calls for a ceasefire but only once a long list of preconditions have been met. They include Hamas returning all hostages, that it cedes control in Gaza, that a new Palestinian government is formed and that there is a “credible pathway” to a two-state solution. The Commons Speaker will choose on Wednesday morning which amendment to call. Government sources insist that parliamentary precedent dictates that it should be theirs, but Labour officials say the Speaker should focus on which ones best allows the public’s views to be aired in the Commons. Many in the Labour party believe that if the Speaker chooses the government amendment, dozens of Labour MPs will vote instead for the SNP motion, in what would be another bruising rebuff to Starmer’s authority. One party source said: “This situation is so tense that an attempt to create party unity on it for the first time in months could genuinely be scuppered by obscure parliamentary processes.” Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales called for the fighting to end “as soon as possible” and for more humanitarian support for Gaza. Prince William issued a statement before carrying out visits to recognise the human suffering caused by conflict in the Middle East and the global rise in antisemitism. “I remain deeply concerned about the terrible human cost of the conflict in the Middle East since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7. Too many have been killed,” he said. “I, like so many others, want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible. There is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support to Gaza. It’s critical that aid gets in and the hostages are released. “Sometimes it is only when faced with the sheer scale of human suffering that the importance of permanent peace is brought home. “Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair. I continue to cling to the hope that a brighter future can be found and I refuse to give up on that.” Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy responded: “Israelis of course want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible, and that will be possible once the 134 hostages are released, and once the Hamas terror army threatening to repeat the 7 October atrocities is dismantled. “We appreciate the Prince of Wales’s call for Hamas to free the hostages. “We also recall with gratitude his statement from 11 October condemning Hamas’s terror attacks and reaffirming Israel’s right of self-defence against them.” Explore more on these topics Labour Israel-Gaza war Israel Gaza Palestine Keir Starmer Prince William news Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer’s attempt to head off a damaging rebellion over Gaza was hanging by a thread last night, despite bowing to pressure by finally calling for an immediate ceasefire in the region. Labour explicitly backed an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” for the first time since fighting broke out in October, in a bid to ward off another party split in what is likely to be a tense Commons vote on Wednesday. The Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire has stoked divisions within the Labour party and outside, with several thousand protesters expected to march on Westminster just as the vote is called. Labour officials believed on Tuesday afternoon that they had successfully persuaded party rebels to vote for their carefully caveated amendment and abstain on the more blunt SNP motion. Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn Read more However, they believe that if the Commons Speaker chooses the government amendment ahead of the Labour one, it is likely to lead to a rebellion similar in scale to that seen last November, in which 56 Labour MPs sided with the SNP . A Labour source said: “Everything now rests with the Speaker. Our amendment should be enough to avoid another major rebellion on Gaza , but we’re not sure what MPs will do if it is not even called for a vote.” Labour’s position on the Middle East crisis has come under intense scrutiny since the war began, with many in the party accusing Starmer of reacting too slowly to events in the region and backing the Israeli government for too long. Party tensions came to a head last November when the SNP used the king’s speech debate to call for a vote on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. With Starmer concerned about not wanting to go further than either the British or American governments, his whips urged MPs to back a Labour motion calling instead for a “cessation of fighting”. This was not enough, however, to prevent dozens of MPs, including eight frontbenchers, siding with the SNP in what became the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Since then, many Labour MPs who remained loyal and abstained on the SNP amendment have been deluged by angry messages from constituents and activists demanding to know why they “voted against a ceasefire”. The SNP is seeking to reopen those wounds on Wednesday with a similarly worded motion calling once more for an immediate ceasefire. Once more Labour has published its own text which it wants MPs to back instead of the SNP motion. However, under heavy pressure from senior pro-Palestinian Labour MPs, the party is this time calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. The 237-word Labour amendment also calls for Israel not to invade the city of Rafah, for aid to be allowed to flow to Gaza, and for international countries to work towards a two-state solution. It stresses, however, that Israel cannot be expected to abide by a ceasefire if Hamas continues to threaten further violence. David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, told the BBC on Tuesday: “We have set down a motion calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. That is because the situation now in Gaza is intolerable, with the dramatic loss of life, with so many people facing starvation, and we are very clear that the Rafah offensive now being planned cannot go ahead. “This is a comprehensive motion, and it’s one that I hope that the whole house can now get behind.” But in a separate interview on LBC, he hinted the party would not back an unamended SNP motion. “The SNP motion calls for an immediate ceasefire,” he said. “It doesn’t speak to that ceasefire being lasting.” By Tuesday afternoon, the alternative Labour motion looked to have secured broad agreement even from many of those who rebelled in November. Clive Betts, one of those Labour rebels, told the BBC’s World at One: “It is a revised and good position. I don’t think anyone can see the horrors of what is happening now in Gaza and not want the fighting to stop and stop immediately. That is what the Labour motion says.” Hours later, however, the government published its own amendment, which also calls for a ceasefire but only once a long list of preconditions have been met. They include Hamas returning all hostages, that it cedes control in Gaza, that a new Palestinian government is formed and that there is a “credible pathway” to a two-state solution. The Commons Speaker will choose on Wednesday morning which amendment to call. Government sources insist that parliamentary precedent dictates that it should be theirs, but Labour officials say the Speaker should focus on which ones best allows the public’s views to be aired in the Commons. Many in the Labour party believe that if the Speaker chooses the government amendment, dozens of Labour MPs will vote instead for the SNP motion, in what would be another bruising rebuff to Starmer’s authority. One party source said: “This situation is so tense that an attempt to create party unity on it for the first time in months could genuinely be scuppered by obscure parliamentary processes.” Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales called for the fighting to end “as soon as possible” and for more humanitarian support for Gaza. Prince William issued a statement before carrying out visits to recognise the human suffering caused by conflict in the Middle East and the global rise in antisemitism. “I remain deeply concerned about the terrible human cost of the conflict in the Middle East since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7. Too many have been killed,” he said. “I, like so many others, want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible. There is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support to Gaza. It’s critical that aid gets in and the hostages are released. “Sometimes it is only when faced with the sheer scale of human suffering that the importance of permanent peace is brought home. “Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair. I continue to cling to the hope that a brighter future can be found and I refuse to give up on that.” Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy responded: “Israelis of course want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible, and that will be possible once the 134 hostages are released, and once the Hamas terror army threatening to repeat the 7 October atrocities is dismantled. “We appreciate the Prince of Wales’s call for Hamas to free the hostages. “We also recall with gratitude his statement from 11 October condemning Hamas’s terror attacks and reaffirming Israel’s right of self-defence against them.” Keir Starmer’s attempt to head off a damaging rebellion over Gaza was hanging by a thread last night, despite bowing to pressure by finally calling for an immediate ceasefire in the region. Labour explicitly backed an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” for the first time since fighting broke out in October, in a bid to ward off another party split in what is likely to be a tense Commons vote on Wednesday. The Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire has stoked divisions within the Labour party and outside, with several thousand protesters expected to march on Westminster just as the vote is called. Labour officials believed on Tuesday afternoon that they had successfully persuaded party rebels to vote for their carefully caveated amendment and abstain on the more blunt SNP motion. Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn Read more However, they believe that if the Commons Speaker chooses the government amendment ahead of the Labour one, it is likely to lead to a rebellion similar in scale to that seen last November, in which 56 Labour MPs sided with the SNP . A Labour source said: “Everything now rests with the Speaker. Our amendment should be enough to avoid another major rebellion on Gaza , but we’re not sure what MPs will do if it is not even called for a vote.” Labour’s position on the Middle East crisis has come under intense scrutiny since the war began, with many in the party accusing Starmer of reacting too slowly to events in the region and backing the Israeli government for too long. Party tensions came to a head last November when the SNP used the king’s speech debate to call for a vote on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. With Starmer concerned about not wanting to go further than either the British or American governments, his whips urged MPs to back a Labour motion calling instead for a “cessation of fighting”. This was not enough, however, to prevent dozens of MPs, including eight frontbenchers, siding with the SNP in what became the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Since then, many Labour MPs who remained loyal and abstained on the SNP amendment have been deluged by angry messages from constituents and activists demanding to know why they “voted against a ceasefire”. The SNP is seeking to reopen those wounds on Wednesday with a similarly worded motion calling once more for an immediate ceasefire. Once more Labour has published its own text which it wants MPs to back instead of the SNP motion. However, under heavy pressure from senior pro-Palestinian Labour MPs, the party is this time calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. The 237-word Labour amendment also calls for Israel not to invade the city of Rafah, for aid to be allowed to flow to Gaza, and for international countries to work towards a two-state solution. It stresses, however, that Israel cannot be expected to abide by a ceasefire if Hamas continues to threaten further violence. David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, told the BBC on Tuesday: “We have set down a motion calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. That is because the situation now in Gaza is intolerable, with the dramatic loss of life, with so many people facing starvation, and we are very clear that the Rafah offensive now being planned cannot go ahead. “This is a comprehensive motion, and it’s one that I hope that the whole house can now get behind.” But in a separate interview on LBC, he hinted the party would not back an unamended SNP motion. “The SNP motion calls for an immediate ceasefire,” he said. “It doesn’t speak to that ceasefire being lasting.” By Tuesday afternoon, the alternative Labour motion looked to have secured broad agreement even from many of those who rebelled in November. Clive Betts, one of those Labour rebels, told the BBC’s World at One: “It is a revised and good position. I don’t think anyone can see the horrors of what is happening now in Gaza and not want the fighting to stop and stop immediately. That is what the Labour motion says.” Hours later, however, the government published its own amendment, which also calls for a ceasefire but only once a long list of preconditions have been met. They include Hamas returning all hostages, that it cedes control in Gaza, that a new Palestinian government is formed and that there is a “credible pathway” to a two-state solution. The Commons Speaker will choose on Wednesday morning which amendment to call. Government sources insist that parliamentary precedent dictates that it should be theirs, but Labour officials say the Speaker should focus on which ones best allows the public’s views to be aired in the Commons. Many in the Labour party believe that if the Speaker chooses the government amendment, dozens of Labour MPs will vote instead for the SNP motion, in what would be another bruising rebuff to Starmer’s authority. One party source said: “This situation is so tense that an attempt to create party unity on it for the first time in months could genuinely be scuppered by obscure parliamentary processes.” Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales called for the fighting to end “as soon as possible” and for more humanitarian support for Gaza. Prince William issued a statement before carrying out visits to recognise the human suffering caused by conflict in the Middle East and the global rise in antisemitism. “I remain deeply concerned about the terrible human cost of the conflict in the Middle East since the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7. Too many have been killed,” he said. “I, like so many others, want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible. There is a desperate need for increased humanitarian support to Gaza. It’s critical that aid gets in and the hostages are released. “Sometimes it is only when faced with the sheer scale of human suffering that the importance of permanent peace is brought home. “Even in the darkest hour, we must not succumb to the counsel of despair. I continue to cling to the hope that a brighter future can be found and I refuse to give up on that.” Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy responded: “Israelis of course want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible, and that will be possible once the 134 hostages are released, and once the Hamas terror army threatening to repeat the 7 October atrocities is dismantled. “We appreciate the Prince of Wales’s call for Hamas to free the hostages. “We also recall with gratitude his statement from 11 October condemning Hamas’s terror attacks and reaffirming Israel’s right of self-defence against them.” Keir Starmer’s attempt to head off a damaging rebellion over Gaza was hanging by a thread last night, despite bowing to pressure by finally calling for an immediate ceasefire in the region. Labour explicitly backed an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” for the first time since fighting broke out in October, in a bid to ward off another party split in what is likely to be a tense Commons vote on Wednesday. The Scottish National party motion calling for an immediate ceasefire has stoked divisions within the Labour party and outside, with several thousand protesters expected to march on Westminster just as the vote is called. Labour officials believed on Tuesday afternoon that they had successfully persuaded party rebels to vote for their carefully caveated amendment and abstain on the more blunt SNP motion. Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn Read more Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn Read more Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn Read more Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn Keir Starmer risks biggest rebellion of his leadership over Gaza vote, MPs warn However, they believe that if the Commons Speaker chooses the government amendment ahead of the Labour one, it is likely to lead to a rebellion similar in scale to that seen last November, in which 56 Labour MPs sided with the SNP . A Labour source said: “Everything now rests with the Speaker. Our amendment should be enough to avoid another major rebellion on Gaza , but we’re not sure what MPs will do if it is not even called for a vote.” Labour’s position on the Middle East crisis has come under intense scrutiny since the war began, with many in the party accusing Starmer of reacting too slowly to events in the region and backing the Israeli government for too long. Party tensions came to a head last November when the SNP used the king’s speech debate to call for a vote on an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. With Starmer concerned about not wanting to go further than either the British or American governments, his whips urged MPs to back a Labour motion calling instead for a “cessation of fighting”. This was not enough, however, to prevent dozens of MPs, including eight frontbenchers, siding with the SNP in what became the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Since then, many Labour MPs who remained loyal and abstained on the SNP amendment have been deluged by angry messages from constituents and activists demanding to know why they “voted against a ceasefire”. The SNP is seeking to reopen those wounds on Wednesday with a similarly worded motion calling once more for an immediate ceasefire. Once more Labour has published its own text which it wants MPs to back instead of the SNP motion. However, under heavy pressure from senior pro-Palestinian Labour MPs, the party is this time calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. The 237-word Labour amendment also calls for Israel not to invade the city of Rafah, for aid to be allowed to flow to Gaza, and for international countries to work towards a two-state solution. It stresses, however, that Israel cannot be expected to abide by a ceasefire if Hamas continues to threaten further violence. David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, told the BBC on Tuesday: “We have set down a motion calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. That is because the situation now in Gaza is intolerable, with the dramatic loss of life, with so many people facing starvation, and we are very clear that the Rafah offensive now being planned cannot go ahead. “This is a comprehensive motion, and it’s one that I hope that the whole house can now get behind.” But in a separate interview on LBC, he hinted the party would not back an unamended SNP motion. “The SNP motion calls for an immediate ceasefire,” he said. “It doesn’t speak to that ceasefire being lasting.” By Tuesday afternoon, the alternative Labour motion looked to have secured broad agreement even from many of those who rebelled in November. Clive Betts, one of those Labour rebels, told the BBC’s World at One: “It is a revised and good position. I don’t think anyone can see the horrors of what is happening now in Gaza and not want the fighting to stop and stop immediately. That is what the Labour motion says.” Hours later, however, the government published its own amendment, which also calls for a ceasefire but only once a long list of preconditions have been met. They include Hamas returning all hostages, that it cedes control in Gaza, that a new Palestinian government is formed and that there is a “credible pathway” to a two-state solution. The Commons Speaker will choose on Wednesday morning which amendment to call. Government sources insist that parliamentary precedent dictates that it should be theirs, but Labour officials say the Speaker should focus on which ones best allows the public’s views to be aired in the Commons. Many in the Labour party believe that i
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Another Canada 93? Tory Sunak critics fear extinction-level election result
Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Another Canada 93? Tory Sunak critics fear extinction-level election result This article is more than 1 year old Peter Walker Deputy political editor A complacent incumbent, an insurgent rightwing challenger – but key differences mean talk of wipeout may be overblown Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat. This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election. The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada . There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform. Arguably the most pertinent common ground is the fact that Canada, like Westminster, uses first past the post (FPTP), a system that can greatly distort the way votes translate into numbers of MPs – in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives got 16% of the vote and ended up with less than 1% of the seats. Could this happen here? Some on the right of the UK Conservatives, who want Sunak to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration, argue that without a change, of course it could. View image in fullscreen Kim Campbell at the Progressive Conservative party leadership convention months before the 1993 Canadian election. Photograph: Tom Hanson/AP Such warnings have grown since last week’s byelection losses in Wellingborough and Kingswood , previously Conservative seats won by Labour after a collapse in the Tory vote and Reform winning 13% and 10% respectively in each seat. The scenario that more doom-laden Tories fear could tip a general election defeat into a calamity would be a further slip in the polls and Nigel Farage deciding to retake the helm of Reform before the election, boosting its support among disenchanted voters on the right. It is certainly true that while a post-election tally of two feels unrealistic, the vagaries of FPTP means it would not take a massive shift in polling for the total number of Tory MPs to drop dramatically. The votes-to-seats modeller on the Electoral Calculus website shows that at current polling levels – 27% for the Conservatives, 43% for Labour, 10% for the Liberal Democrats, 9% for Reform, 7% for the Greens – the Conservatives would be reduced to 179 MPs. However, in a scenario where Labour’s vote share increased by one percentage point to 44%, the Tories’ fell to 20%, with the other six points moving to Reform (now on 14%) and the Lib Dems (13%), and the Greens still on 7%, could result in just 55 Conservative MPs. Such FPTP distortions can be amplified further by particularly efficient tactical voting and the vagaries of where votes are distributed. There are a number of significant differences from Canada in 1993, however, including the near disappearance of the Progressive Conservatives’ representation in Quebec amid the rise of the separatist Bloc Québécois. In contrast, the Conservatives start at an already lower base in Scotland and, to an extent, Wales. View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer welcomes the new Labour MPs Gen Kitchen (red jacket) and Damien Egan (behind Starmer) to the Houses of Parliament on Monday. Photograph: Aaron Chown/PA Overall, most pundits do not believe a Canada-style wipeout will happen. “Never say never about anything in politics,” said Robert Hayward, a Conservative peer and psephologist. “But the only people who mention it are those who have a vested interest in exaggerating the potential for a possible defeat.” Lord Hayward thinks it is unlikely that the Tories will win fewer than 100 seats, arguing that the rise of Reform could hamper Lib Dem appeal for anti-Tory protest voters. “I could foresee circumstances where something like that could happen. Do I think it will happen? No,” he said. Anand Menon, the director of the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe and a professor of European politics at King’s College London, co-authored a 2022 study that examined the parallels with 1993. He argued that the situations were sufficiently different. “On one level, anything’s possible,” he said. “My hunch is that the polls will narrow as we get to the election. With the Canadian case, you had a far stronger splintering of the right than we seem to have now, even with Reform’s performance last week. “The other thing you’ve got to factor in, which builds into this uncertainty, is there is eye-watering levels of volatility amongst the British voting public at the moment, compared to any historical period. “Some basic facts seem to me self-evident, which is that the Tories are in a really bad position and are heading towards a bad electoral defeat. But whether it’s what they call an extinction-level event, I doubt, to be honest.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak Reform UK analysis Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Another Canada 93? Tory Sunak critics fear extinction-level election result This article is more than 1 year old Peter Walker Deputy political editor A complacent incumbent, an insurgent rightwing challenger – but key differences mean talk of wipeout may be overblown Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat. This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election. The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada . There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform. Arguably the most pertinent common ground is the fact that Canada, like Westminster, uses first past the post (FPTP), a system that can greatly distort the way votes translate into numbers of MPs – in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives got 16% of the vote and ended up with less than 1% of the seats. Could this happen here? Some on the right of the UK Conservatives, who want Sunak to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration, argue that without a change, of course it could. View image in fullscreen Kim Campbell at the Progressive Conservative party leadership convention months before the 1993 Canadian election. Photograph: Tom Hanson/AP Such warnings have grown since last week’s byelection losses in Wellingborough and Kingswood , previously Conservative seats won by Labour after a collapse in the Tory vote and Reform winning 13% and 10% respectively in each seat. The scenario that more doom-laden Tories fear could tip a general election defeat into a calamity would be a further slip in the polls and Nigel Farage deciding to retake the helm of Reform before the election, boosting its support among disenchanted voters on the right. It is certainly true that while a post-election tally of two feels unrealistic, the vagaries of FPTP means it would not take a massive shift in polling for the total number of Tory MPs to drop dramatically. The votes-to-seats modeller on the Electoral Calculus website shows that at current polling levels – 27% for the Conservatives, 43% for Labour, 10% for the Liberal Democrats, 9% for Reform, 7% for the Greens – the Conservatives would be reduced to 179 MPs. However, in a scenario where Labour’s vote share increased by one percentage point to 44%, the Tories’ fell to 20%, with the other six points moving to Reform (now on 14%) and the Lib Dems (13%), and the Greens still on 7%, could result in just 55 Conservative MPs. Such FPTP distortions can be amplified further by particularly efficient tactical voting and the vagaries of where votes are distributed. There are a number of significant differences from Canada in 1993, however, including the near disappearance of the Progressive Conservatives’ representation in Quebec amid the rise of the separatist Bloc Québécois. In contrast, the Conservatives start at an already lower base in Scotland and, to an extent, Wales. View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer welcomes the new Labour MPs Gen Kitchen (red jacket) and Damien Egan (behind Starmer) to the Houses of Parliament on Monday. Photograph: Aaron Chown/PA Overall, most pundits do not believe a Canada-style wipeout will happen. “Never say never about anything in politics,” said Robert Hayward, a Conservative peer and psephologist. “But the only people who mention it are those who have a vested interest in exaggerating the potential for a possible defeat.” Lord Hayward thinks it is unlikely that the Tories will win fewer than 100 seats, arguing that the rise of Reform could hamper Lib Dem appeal for anti-Tory protest voters. “I could foresee circumstances where something like that could happen. Do I think it will happen? No,” he said. Anand Menon, the director of the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe and a professor of European politics at King’s College London, co-authored a 2022 study that examined the parallels with 1993. He argued that the situations were sufficiently different. “On one level, anything’s possible,” he said. “My hunch is that the polls will narrow as we get to the election. With the Canadian case, you had a far stronger splintering of the right than we seem to have now, even with Reform’s performance last week. “The other thing you’ve got to factor in, which builds into this uncertainty, is there is eye-watering levels of volatility amongst the British voting public at the moment, compared to any historical period. “Some basic facts seem to me self-evident, which is that the Tories are in a really bad position and are heading towards a bad electoral defeat. But whether it’s what they call an extinction-level event, I doubt, to be honest.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak Reform UK analysis Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA Rishi Sunak is under pressure from some in his party to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Another Canada 93? Tory Sunak critics fear extinction-level election result This article is more than 1 year old Peter Walker Deputy political editor This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Another Canada 93? Tory Sunak critics fear extinction-level election result This article is more than 1 year old Peter Walker Deputy political editor This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Another Canada 93? Tory Sunak critics fear extinction-level election result This article is more than 1 year old Peter Walker Deputy political editor This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Peter Walker Deputy political editor Peter Walker Deputy political editor A complacent incumbent, an insurgent rightwing challenger – but key differences mean talk of wipeout may be overblown A complacent incumbent, an insurgent rightwing challenger – but key differences mean talk of wipeout may be overblown A complacent incumbent, an insurgent rightwing challenger – but key differences mean talk of wipeout may be overblown Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat. This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election. The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada . There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform. Arguably the most pertinent common ground is the fact that Canada, like Westminster, uses first past the post (FPTP), a system that can greatly distort the way votes translate into numbers of MPs – in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives got 16% of the vote and ended up with less than 1% of the seats. Could this happen here? Some on the right of the UK Conservatives, who want Sunak to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration, argue that without a change, of course it could. View image in fullscreen Kim Campbell at the Progressive Conservative party leadership convention months before the 1993 Canadian election. Photograph: Tom Hanson/AP Such warnings have grown since last week’s byelection losses in Wellingborough and Kingswood , previously Conservative seats won by Labour after a collapse in the Tory vote and Reform winning 13% and 10% respectively in each seat. The scenario that more doom-laden Tories fear could tip a general election defeat into a calamity would be a further slip in the polls and Nigel Farage deciding to retake the helm of Reform before the election, boosting its support among disenchanted voters on the right. It is certainly true that while a post-election tally of two feels unrealistic, the vagaries of FPTP means it would not take a massive shift in polling for the total number of Tory MPs to drop dramatically. The votes-to-seats modeller on the Electoral Calculus website shows that at current polling levels – 27% for the Conservatives, 43% for Labour, 10% for the Liberal Democrats, 9% for Reform, 7% for the Greens – the Conservatives would be reduced to 179 MPs. However, in a scenario where Labour’s vote share increased by one percentage point to 44%, the Tories’ fell to 20%, with the other six points moving to Reform (now on 14%) and the Lib Dems (13%), and the Greens still on 7%, could result in just 55 Conservative MPs. Such FPTP distortions can be amplified further by particularly efficient tactical voting and the vagaries of where votes are distributed. There are a number of significant differences from Canada in 1993, however, including the near disappearance of the Progressive Conservatives’ representation in Quebec amid the rise of the separatist Bloc Québécois. In contrast, the Conservatives start at an already lower base in Scotland and, to an extent, Wales. View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer welcomes the new Labour MPs Gen Kitchen (red jacket) and Damien Egan (behind Starmer) to the Houses of Parliament on Monday. Photograph: Aaron Chown/PA Overall, most pundits do not believe a Canada-style wipeout will happen. “Never say never about anything in politics,” said Robert Hayward, a Conservative peer and psephologist. “But the only people who mention it are those who have a vested interest in exaggerating the potential for a possible defeat.” Lord Hayward thinks it is unlikely that the Tories will win fewer than 100 seats, arguing that the rise of Reform could hamper Lib Dem appeal for anti-Tory protest voters. “I could foresee circumstances where something like that could happen. Do I think it will happen? No,” he said. Anand Menon, the director of the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe and a professor of European politics at King’s College London, co-authored a 2022 study that examined the parallels with 1993. He argued that the situations were sufficiently different. “On one level, anything’s possible,” he said. “My hunch is that the polls will narrow as we get to the election. With the Canadian case, you had a far stronger splintering of the right than we seem to have now, even with Reform’s performance last week. “The other thing you’ve got to factor in, which builds into this uncertainty, is there is eye-watering levels of volatility amongst the British voting public at the moment, compared to any historical period. “Some basic facts seem to me self-evident, which is that the Tories are in a really bad position and are heading towards a bad electoral defeat. But whether it’s what they call an extinction-level event, I doubt, to be honest.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak Reform UK analysis Share Reuse this content Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat. This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election. The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada . There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform. Arguably the most pertinent common ground is the fact that Canada, like Westminster, uses first past the post (FPTP), a system that can greatly distort the way votes translate into numbers of MPs – in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives got 16% of the vote and ended up with less than 1% of the seats. Could this happen here? Some on the right of the UK Conservatives, who want Sunak to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration, argue that without a change, of course it could. View image in fullscreen Kim Campbell at the Progressive Conservative party leadership convention months before the 1993 Canadian election. Photograph: Tom Hanson/AP Such warnings have grown since last week’s byelection losses in Wellingborough and Kingswood , previously Conservative seats won by Labour after a collapse in the Tory vote and Reform winning 13% and 10% respectively in each seat. The scenario that more doom-laden Tories fear could tip a general election defeat into a calamity would be a further slip in the polls and Nigel Farage deciding to retake the helm of Reform before the election, boosting its support among disenchanted voters on the right. It is certainly true that while a post-election tally of two feels unrealistic, the vagaries of FPTP means it would not take a massive shift in polling for the total number of Tory MPs to drop dramatically. The votes-to-seats modeller on the Electoral Calculus website shows that at current polling levels – 27% for the Conservatives, 43% for Labour, 10% for the Liberal Democrats, 9% for Reform, 7% for the Greens – the Conservatives would be reduced to 179 MPs. However, in a scenario where Labour’s vote share increased by one percentage point to 44%, the Tories’ fell to 20%, with the other six points moving to Reform (now on 14%) and the Lib Dems (13%), and the Greens still on 7%, could result in just 55 Conservative MPs. Such FPTP distortions can be amplified further by particularly efficient tactical voting and the vagaries of where votes are distributed. There are a number of significant differences from Canada in 1993, however, including the near disappearance of the Progressive Conservatives’ representation in Quebec amid the rise of the separatist Bloc Québécois. In contrast, the Conservatives start at an already lower base in Scotland and, to an extent, Wales. View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer welcomes the new Labour MPs Gen Kitchen (red jacket) and Damien Egan (behind Starmer) to the Houses of Parliament on Monday. Photograph: Aaron Chown/PA Overall, most pundits do not believe a Canada-style wipeout will happen. “Never say never about anything in politics,” said Robert Hayward, a Conservative peer and psephologist. “But the only people who mention it are those who have a vested interest in exaggerating the potential for a possible defeat.” Lord Hayward thinks it is unlikely that the Tories will win fewer than 100 seats, arguing that the rise of Reform could hamper Lib Dem appeal for anti-Tory protest voters. “I could foresee circumstances where something like that could happen. Do I think it will happen? No,” he said. Anand Menon, the director of the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe and a professor of European politics at King’s College London, co-authored a 2022 study that examined the parallels with 1993. He argued that the situations were sufficiently different. “On one level, anything’s possible,” he said. “My hunch is that the polls will narrow as we get to the election. With the Canadian case, you had a far stronger splintering of the right than we seem to have now, even with Reform’s performance last week. “The other thing you’ve got to factor in, which builds into this uncertainty, is there is eye-watering levels of volatility amongst the British voting public at the moment, compared to any historical period. “Some basic facts seem to me self-evident, which is that the Tories are in a really bad position and are heading towards a bad electoral defeat. But whether it’s what they call an extinction-level event, I doubt, to be honest.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak Reform UK analysis Share Reuse this content Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat. This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election. The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada . There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform. Arguably the most pertinent common ground is the fact that Canada, like Westminster, uses first past the post (FPTP), a system that can greatly distort the way votes translate into numbers of MPs – in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives got 16% of the vote and ended up with less than 1% of the seats. Could this happen here? Some on the right of the UK Conservatives, who want Sunak to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration, argue that without a change, of course it could. View image in fullscreen Kim Campbell at the Progressive Conservative party leadership convention months before the 1993 Canadian election. Photograph: Tom Hanson/AP Such warnings have grown since last week’s byelection losses in Wellingborough and Kingswood , previously Conservative seats won by Labour after a collapse in the Tory vote and Reform winning 13% and 10% respectively in each seat. The scenario that more doom-laden Tories fear could tip a general election defeat into a calamity would be a further slip in the polls and Nigel Farage deciding to retake the helm of Reform before the election, boosting its support among disenchanted voters on the right. It is certainly true that while a post-election tally of two feels unrealistic, the vagaries of FPTP means it would not take a massive shift in polling for the total number of Tory MPs to drop dramatically. The votes-to-seats modeller on the Electoral Calculus website shows that at current polling levels – 27% for the Conservatives, 43% for Labour, 10% for the Liberal Democrats, 9% for Reform, 7% for the Greens – the Conservatives would be reduced to 179 MPs. However, in a scenario where Labour’s vote share increased by one percentage point to 44%, the Tories’ fell to 20%, with the other six points moving to Reform (now on 14%) and the Lib Dems (13%), and the Greens still on 7%, could result in just 55 Conservative MPs. Such FPTP distortions can be amplified further by particularly efficient tactical voting and the vagaries of where votes are distributed. There are a number of significant differences from Canada in 1993, however, including the near disappearance of the Progressive Conservatives’ representation in Quebec amid the rise of the separatist Bloc Québécois. In contrast, the Conservatives start at an already lower base in Scotland and, to an extent, Wales. View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer welcomes the new Labour MPs Gen Kitchen (red jacket) and Damien Egan (behind Starmer) to the Houses of Parliament on Monday. Photograph: Aaron Chown/PA Overall, most pundits do not believe a Canada-style wipeout will happen. “Never say never about anything in politics,” said Robert Hayward, a Conservative peer and psephologist. “But the only people who mention it are those who have a vested interest in exaggerating the potential for a possible defeat.” Lord Hayward thinks it is unlikely that the Tories will win fewer than 100 seats, arguing that the rise of Reform could hamper Lib Dem appeal for anti-Tory protest voters. “I could foresee circumstances where something like that could happen. Do I think it will happen? No,” he said. Anand Menon, the director of the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe and a professor of European politics at King’s College London, co-authored a 2022 study that examined the parallels with 1993. He argued that the situations were sufficiently different. “On one level, anything’s possible,” he said. “My hunch is that the polls will narrow as we get to the election. With the Canadian case, you had a far stronger splintering of the right than we seem to have now, even with Reform’s performance last week. “The other thing you’ve got to factor in, which builds into this uncertainty, is there is eye-watering levels of volatility amongst the British voting public at the moment, compared to any historical period. “Some basic facts seem to me self-evident, which is that the Tories are in a really bad position and are heading towards a bad electoral defeat. But whether it’s what they call an extinction-level event, I doubt, to be honest.” Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat. This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election. The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada . There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform. Arguably the most pertinent common ground is the fact that Canada, like Westminster, uses first past the post (FPTP), a system that can greatly distort the way votes translate into numbers of MPs – in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives got 16% of the vote and ended up with less than 1% of the seats. Could this happen here? Some on the right of the UK Conservatives, who want Sunak to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration, argue that without a change, of course it could. View image in fullscreen Kim Campbell at the Progressive Conservative party leadership convention months before the 1993 Canadian election. Photograph: Tom Hanson/AP Such warnings have grown since last week’s byelection losses in Wellingborough and Kingswood , previously Conservative seats won by Labour after a collapse in the Tory vote and Reform winning 13% and 10% respectively in each seat. The scenario that more doom-laden Tories fear could tip a general election defeat into a calamity would be a further slip in the polls and Nigel Farage deciding to retake the helm of Reform before the election, boosting its support among disenchanted voters on the right. It is certainly true that while a post-election tally of two feels unrealistic, the vagaries of FPTP means it would not take a massive shift in polling for the total number of Tory MPs to drop dramatically. The votes-to-seats modeller on the Electoral Calculus website shows that at current polling levels – 27% for the Conservatives, 43% for Labour, 10% for the Liberal Democrats, 9% for Reform, 7% for the Greens – the Conservatives would be reduced to 179 MPs. However, in a scenario where Labour’s vote share increased by one percentage point to 44%, the Tories’ fell to 20%, with the other six points moving to Reform (now on 14%) and the Lib Dems (13%), and the Greens still on 7%, could result in just 55 Conservative MPs. Such FPTP distortions can be amplified further by particularly efficient tactical voting and the vagaries of where votes are distributed. There are a number of significant differences from Canada in 1993, however, including the near disappearance of the Progressive Conservatives’ representation in Quebec amid the rise of the separatist Bloc Québécois. In contrast, the Conservatives start at an already lower base in Scotland and, to an extent, Wales. View image in fullscreen Keir Starmer welcomes the new Labour MPs Gen Kitchen (red jacket) and Damien Egan (behind Starmer) to the Houses of Parliament on Monday. Photograph: Aaron Chown/PA Overall, most pundits do not believe a Canada-style wipeout will happen. “Never say never about anything in politics,” said Robert Hayward, a Conservative peer and psephologist. “But the only people who mention it are those who have a vested interest in exaggerating the potential for a possible defeat.” Lord Hayward thinks it is unlikely that the Tories will win fewer than 100 seats, arguing that the rise of Reform could hamper Lib Dem appeal for anti-Tory protest voters. “I could foresee circumstances where something like that could happen. Do I think it will happen? No,” he said. Anand Menon, the director of the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe and a professor of European politics at King’s College London, co-authored a 2022 study that examined the parallels with 1993. He argued that the situations were sufficiently different. “On one level, anything’s possible,” he said. “My hunch is that the polls will narrow as we get to the election. With the Canadian case, you had a far stronger splintering of the right than we seem to have now, even with Reform’s performance last week. “The other thing you’ve got to factor in, which builds into this uncertainty, is there is eye-watering levels of volatility amongst the British voting public at the moment, compared to any historical period. “Some basic facts seem to me self-evident, which is that the Tories are in a really bad position and are heading towards a bad electoral defeat. But whether it’s what they call an extinction-level event, I doubt, to be honest.” Overseas elections from more than 30 years ago are rarely hot topics of conversation in modern UK politics. But whisper “Canada 1993” into a Conservative MP’s ear and don’t be surprised if they break into a sudden cold sweat. This is the model for the “extinction-level event” experienced by a previously dominant rightwing party – one that some Tory opponents of Rishi Sunak warn he risks emulating at the next general election. The basic and, for Tory MPs, chilling facts are that in October 1993 the Progressive Conservative party, in power in Canada since 1984, slumped from 167 federal seats to just two, eventually leading to its dissolution and merger into the new Conservative party of Canada . There are some curiously precise parallels: a complacent conservative incumbent that had recently ditched its leader (Kim Campbell replacing Brian Mulroney) was struggling with the economy and faced a new, insurgent rightwing party – called Reform. Arguably the most pertinent common ground is the fact that Canada, like Westminster, uses first past the post (FPTP), a system that can greatly distort the way votes translate into numbers of MPs – in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives got 16% of the vote and ended up with less than 1% of the seats. Could this happen here? Some on the right of the UK Conservatives, who want Sunak to more closely follow Reform UK’s harder-right populism on areas such as immigration, argue that without a change, of course it could. Such warnings have grown since last week’s byelection losses in Wellingborough and Kingswood , previously Conservative seats won by Labour after a collapse in the Tory vote and Reform winning 13% and 10% respectively in each seat. The scenario that more doom-laden Tories fear could tip a general election defeat into a calamity would be a further slip in the polls and Nigel Farage deciding to retake the helm of Reform before the election, boosting its support among disenchanted voters on the right. It is certainly true that while a post-election tally of two feels unrealistic, the vagaries of FPTP means it would not take a massive shift in polling for the total number of Tory MPs to drop dramatically. The votes-to-seats modeller on the Electoral Calculus website shows that at current polling levels – 27% for the Conservatives, 43% for Labour, 10% for the Liberal Democrats, 9% for Reform, 7% for the Greens – the Conservatives would be reduced to 179 MPs. However, in a scenario where Labour’s vote share increased by one percentage point to 44%, the Tories’ fell to 20%, with the other six points moving to Reform (now on 14%) and the Lib Dems (13%), and the Greens still on 7%, could result in just 55 Conservative MPs. Such FPTP distortions can be amplified further by particularly efficient tactical voting and the vagaries of where votes are distributed. There are a number of significant differences from Canada in 1993, however, including the near disappearance of the Progressive Conservatives’ representation in Quebec amid the rise of the separatist Bloc Québécois. In contrast, the Conservatives start at an already lower base in Scotland and, to an extent, Wales. Overall, most pundits do not believe a Canada-style wipeout will happen. “Never say never about anything in politics,” said Robert Hayward, a Conservative peer and psephologist. “But the only people who mention it are those who have a vested interest in exaggerating the potential for a possible defeat.” Lord Hayward thinks it is unlikely that the Tories will win fewer than 100 seats, arguing that the rise of Reform could hamper Lib Dem appeal for anti-Tory protest voters. “I could foresee circumstances where something like that could happen. Do I think it will happen? No,” he said. Anand Menon, the director of the thinktank UK in a Changing Europe and a professor of European politics at King’s College London, co-authored a 2022 study that examined the parallels with 1993. He argued that the situations were sufficiently different. “On one level, anything’s possible,” he said. “My hunch is that the polls will narrow as we get to the election. With the Canadian case, you had a far stronger splintering of the right than we seem to have now, even with Reform’s performance last week. “The other thing you’ve got to factor in, which builds into this uncertainty, is there is eye-watering levels of volatility amongst the British voting public at the moment, compared to any historical period. “Some basic facts seem to me self-evident, which is that the Tories are in a really bad position and are heading towards a bad electoral defeat. But whether it’s what they call an extinction-level event, I doubt, to be honest.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak Reform UK analysis Share Reuse this content Conservatives Rishi Sunak Reform UK analysis |
Is an uprising by Europe’s farmers sowing the seeds for the far right?
This article is more than 1 year old Is an uprising by Europe’s farmers sowing the seeds for the far right? This article is more than 1 year old 00:00:00 00:00:00 Furious farmers across Europe have blocked roads and railways as part of protests against new regulations and cheap imports. Jon Henley reports The scenes are now familiar across Europe , from Poland to Portugal: angry farmers blocking roads, ports, railways and city centres. Parts of Brussels and Berlin have ground to a standstill in recent weeks. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed with police. As the Guardian’s Europe correspondent Jon Henley tells Michael Safi, there are several reasons for their anger, including rising costs of fuel and fertilisers, supermarket price squeezes and an influx of cheap imports crowding the marketplace. But there is a focus for their anger: what they see as onerous new green regulations from Brussels and their own national governments. The protests are working; politicians in recent weeks have compromised and delayed bringing in some measures as elections loom and the far right agitates against the green agenda. But the climate crisis is only getting worse, and as long-running droughts in Spain have shown, Europe is increasingly on the frontline. Photograph: Czarek Sokołowski/AP Explore more on these topics European Union Today in Focus Farming Europe This article is more than 1 year old Is an uprising by Europe’s farmers sowing the seeds for the far right? This article is more than 1 year old 00:00:00 00:00:00 Furious farmers across Europe have blocked roads and railways as part of protests against new regulations and cheap imports. Jon Henley reports The scenes are now familiar across Europe , from Poland to Portugal: angry farmers blocking roads, ports, railways and city centres. Parts of Brussels and Berlin have ground to a standstill in recent weeks. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed with police. As the Guardian’s Europe correspondent Jon Henley tells Michael Safi, there are several reasons for their anger, including rising costs of fuel and fertilisers, supermarket price squeezes and an influx of cheap imports crowding the marketplace. But there is a focus for their anger: what they see as onerous new green regulations from Brussels and their own national governments. The protests are working; politicians in recent weeks have compromised and delayed bringing in some measures as elections loom and the far right agitates against the green agenda. But the climate crisis is only getting worse, and as long-running droughts in Spain have shown, Europe is increasingly on the frontline. Photograph: Czarek Sokołowski/AP Explore more on these topics European Union Today in Focus Farming Europe This article is more than 1 year old Is an uprising by Europe’s farmers sowing the seeds for the far right? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Is an uprising by Europe’s farmers sowing the seeds for the far right? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Is an uprising by Europe’s farmers sowing the seeds for the far right? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Furious farmers across Europe have blocked roads and railways as part of protests against new regulations and cheap imports. Jon Henley reports Furious farmers across Europe have blocked roads and railways as part of protests against new regulations and cheap imports. Jon Henley reports Furious farmers across Europe have blocked roads and railways as part of protests against new regulations and cheap imports. Jon Henley reports The scenes are now familiar across Europe , from Poland to Portugal: angry farmers blocking roads, ports, railways and city centres. Parts of Brussels and Berlin have ground to a standstill in recent weeks. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed with police. As the Guardian’s Europe correspondent Jon Henley tells Michael Safi, there are several reasons for their anger, including rising costs of fuel and fertilisers, supermarket price squeezes and an influx of cheap imports crowding the marketplace. But there is a focus for their anger: what they see as onerous new green regulations from Brussels and their own national governments. The protests are working; politicians in recent weeks have compromised and delayed bringing in some measures as elections loom and the far right agitates against the green agenda. But the climate crisis is only getting worse, and as long-running droughts in Spain have shown, Europe is increasingly on the frontline. Photograph: Czarek Sokołowski/AP Explore more on these topics European Union Today in Focus Farming Europe The scenes are now familiar across Europe , from Poland to Portugal: angry farmers blocking roads, ports, railways and city centres. Parts of Brussels and Berlin have ground to a standstill in recent weeks. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed with police. As the Guardian’s Europe correspondent Jon Henley tells Michael Safi, there are several reasons for their anger, including rising costs of fuel and fertilisers, supermarket price squeezes and an influx of cheap imports crowding the marketplace. But there is a focus for their anger: what they see as onerous new green regulations from Brussels and their own national governments. The protests are working; politicians in recent weeks have compromised and delayed bringing in some measures as elections loom and the far right agitates against the green agenda. But the climate crisis is only getting worse, and as long-running droughts in Spain have shown, Europe is increasingly on the frontline. Photograph: Czarek Sokołowski/AP Explore more on these topics European Union Today in Focus Farming Europe The scenes are now familiar across Europe , from Poland to Portugal: angry farmers blocking roads, ports, railways and city centres. Parts of Brussels and Berlin have ground to a standstill in recent weeks. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed with police. As the Guardian’s Europe correspondent Jon Henley tells Michael Safi, there are several reasons for their anger, including rising costs of fuel and fertilisers, supermarket price squeezes and an influx of cheap imports crowding the marketplace. But there is a focus for their anger: what they see as onerous new green regulations from Brussels and their own national governments. The protests are working; politicians in recent weeks have compromised and delayed bringing in some measures as elections loom and the far right agitates against the green agenda. But the climate crisis is only getting worse, and as long-running droughts in Spain have shown, Europe is increasingly on the frontline. Photograph: Czarek Sokołowski/AP The scenes are now familiar across Europe , from Poland to Portugal: angry farmers blocking roads, ports, railways and city centres. Parts of Brussels and Berlin have ground to a standstill in recent weeks. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed with police. As the Guardian’s Europe correspondent Jon Henley tells Michael Safi, there are several reasons for their anger, including rising costs of fuel and fertilisers, supermarket price squeezes and an influx of cheap imports crowding the marketplace. But there is a focus for their anger: what they see as onerous new green regulations from Brussels and their own national governments. The protests are working; politicians in recent weeks have compromised and delayed bringing in some measures as elections loom and the far right agitates against the green agenda. But the climate crisis is only getting worse, and as long-running droughts in Spain have shown, Europe is increasingly on the frontline. Photograph: Czarek Sokołowski/AP The scenes are now familiar across Europe , from Poland to Portugal: angry farmers blocking roads, ports, railways and city centres. Parts of Brussels and Berlin have ground to a standstill in recent weeks. Farmers have closed down motorways, dumped manure, hurled eggs, trashed supermarkets, set fire to hay bales and pallets, and clashed with police. As the Guardian’s Europe correspondent Jon Henley tells Michael Safi, there are several reasons for their anger, including rising costs of fuel and fertilisers, supermarket price squeezes and an influx of cheap imports crowding the marketplace. But there is a focus for their anger: what they see as onerous new green regulations from Brussels and their own national governments. The protests are working; politicians in recent weeks have compromised and delayed bringing in some measures as elections loom and the far right agitates against the green agenda. But the climate crisis is only getting worse, and as long-running droughts in Spain have shown, Europe is increasingly on the frontline. Explore more on these topics European Union Today in Focus Farming Europe European Union Today in Focus Farming Europe |
Removing UK climate protesters’ defence ‘could erode right to trial by jury’
Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Removing UK climate protesters’ defence ‘could erode right to trial by jury’ This article is more than 1 year old Attorney general’s attempt to end climate protesters’ use of consent defence is slippery slope, says KC A UK government attempt to remove one of the last remaining defences for climate protesters would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury, the court of appeal was told on Wednesday. The attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is arguing that one of the last available defences being used by environmental protesters should be removed. Prentis is making the appeal in the case of a defendant known as C, after a string of acquittals by juries of defendants for acts of criminal damage involving daubing paint on buildings. Tom Little KC for the attorney general, told the appeal court judges that use of the so-called “consent” defence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 was wrong and too broad an interpretation of the law . The defence, which relates to criminal damage only, involves a defendant arguing they had an honest belief that the owner of the property damaged would have consented if they had known the reasons why the action had been taken. Little said climate protesters had resorted to using the defence because another key defence under the Human Rights Act had been removed in a previous intervention by Suella Braverman as the attorney general. “The defence has only recently begun to be run … since the last attorney general closed down one door. Another door has been wrongly broken down in order [for defendants] to make this argument,” he said. But Henry Blaxland KC, for C, said it was a matter for a jury to decide whether a defendant honestly believed that the owner of a property would have consented to the damage caused. “This is a matter for the jury,” said Blaxland. He said to stop a defendant presenting the defence to jurors “would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury”. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the woman at the centre of the attorney general’s appeal said the attempt to remove the defence was an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Little said he was not seeking some kind of special regime for protesters but rather to seek clarification on the law because trial judges had been making inconsistent decisions on whether defendants charged with criminal damage could use the defence. “We submit that [the defence] is being used in a way that was not envisaged and cannot have been intended by parliament. If that is right, it leads to the conclusion that this section [of the act] is being interpreted too broadly and in reality wrongly.” Several protesters have been acquitted by juries after using the defence in the last year. Among them were climate protesters found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank and individuals acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. As attorney general, Suella Braverman successfully went to the appeal court in 2022 to remove the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998 following her anger over the jury acquittals of four individuals for toppling a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. Judgment was reserved until a later date. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest news Share Reuse this content Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Removing UK climate protesters’ defence ‘could erode right to trial by jury’ This article is more than 1 year old Attorney general’s attempt to end climate protesters’ use of consent defence is slippery slope, says KC A UK government attempt to remove one of the last remaining defences for climate protesters would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury, the court of appeal was told on Wednesday. The attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is arguing that one of the last available defences being used by environmental protesters should be removed. Prentis is making the appeal in the case of a defendant known as C, after a string of acquittals by juries of defendants for acts of criminal damage involving daubing paint on buildings. Tom Little KC for the attorney general, told the appeal court judges that use of the so-called “consent” defence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 was wrong and too broad an interpretation of the law . The defence, which relates to criminal damage only, involves a defendant arguing they had an honest belief that the owner of the property damaged would have consented if they had known the reasons why the action had been taken. Little said climate protesters had resorted to using the defence because another key defence under the Human Rights Act had been removed in a previous intervention by Suella Braverman as the attorney general. “The defence has only recently begun to be run … since the last attorney general closed down one door. Another door has been wrongly broken down in order [for defendants] to make this argument,” he said. But Henry Blaxland KC, for C, said it was a matter for a jury to decide whether a defendant honestly believed that the owner of a property would have consented to the damage caused. “This is a matter for the jury,” said Blaxland. He said to stop a defendant presenting the defence to jurors “would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury”. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the woman at the centre of the attorney general’s appeal said the attempt to remove the defence was an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Little said he was not seeking some kind of special regime for protesters but rather to seek clarification on the law because trial judges had been making inconsistent decisions on whether defendants charged with criminal damage could use the defence. “We submit that [the defence] is being used in a way that was not envisaged and cannot have been intended by parliament. If that is right, it leads to the conclusion that this section [of the act] is being interpreted too broadly and in reality wrongly.” Several protesters have been acquitted by juries after using the defence in the last year. Among them were climate protesters found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank and individuals acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. As attorney general, Suella Braverman successfully went to the appeal court in 2022 to remove the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998 following her anger over the jury acquittals of four individuals for toppling a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. Judgment was reserved until a later date. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest news Share Reuse this content Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images Climate protesters on Oxford Street in London. Photograph: Daniel Leal/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Removing UK climate protesters’ defence ‘could erode right to trial by jury’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Removing UK climate protesters’ defence ‘could erode right to trial by jury’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Removing UK climate protesters’ defence ‘could erode right to trial by jury’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Attorney general’s attempt to end climate protesters’ use of consent defence is slippery slope, says KC Attorney general’s attempt to end climate protesters’ use of consent defence is slippery slope, says KC Attorney general’s attempt to end climate protesters’ use of consent defence is slippery slope, says KC A UK government attempt to remove one of the last remaining defences for climate protesters would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury, the court of appeal was told on Wednesday. The attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is arguing that one of the last available defences being used by environmental protesters should be removed. Prentis is making the appeal in the case of a defendant known as C, after a string of acquittals by juries of defendants for acts of criminal damage involving daubing paint on buildings. Tom Little KC for the attorney general, told the appeal court judges that use of the so-called “consent” defence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 was wrong and too broad an interpretation of the law . The defence, which relates to criminal damage only, involves a defendant arguing they had an honest belief that the owner of the property damaged would have consented if they had known the reasons why the action had been taken. Little said climate protesters had resorted to using the defence because another key defence under the Human Rights Act had been removed in a previous intervention by Suella Braverman as the attorney general. “The defence has only recently begun to be run … since the last attorney general closed down one door. Another door has been wrongly broken down in order [for defendants] to make this argument,” he said. But Henry Blaxland KC, for C, said it was a matter for a jury to decide whether a defendant honestly believed that the owner of a property would have consented to the damage caused. “This is a matter for the jury,” said Blaxland. He said to stop a defendant presenting the defence to jurors “would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury”. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the woman at the centre of the attorney general’s appeal said the attempt to remove the defence was an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Little said he was not seeking some kind of special regime for protesters but rather to seek clarification on the law because trial judges had been making inconsistent decisions on whether defendants charged with criminal damage could use the defence. “We submit that [the defence] is being used in a way that was not envisaged and cannot have been intended by parliament. If that is right, it leads to the conclusion that this section [of the act] is being interpreted too broadly and in reality wrongly.” Several protesters have been acquitted by juries after using the defence in the last year. Among them were climate protesters found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank and individuals acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. As attorney general, Suella Braverman successfully went to the appeal court in 2022 to remove the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998 following her anger over the jury acquittals of four individuals for toppling a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. Judgment was reserved until a later date. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest news Share Reuse this content A UK government attempt to remove one of the last remaining defences for climate protesters would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury, the court of appeal was told on Wednesday. The attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is arguing that one of the last available defences being used by environmental protesters should be removed. Prentis is making the appeal in the case of a defendant known as C, after a string of acquittals by juries of defendants for acts of criminal damage involving daubing paint on buildings. Tom Little KC for the attorney general, told the appeal court judges that use of the so-called “consent” defence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 was wrong and too broad an interpretation of the law . The defence, which relates to criminal damage only, involves a defendant arguing they had an honest belief that the owner of the property damaged would have consented if they had known the reasons why the action had been taken. Little said climate protesters had resorted to using the defence because another key defence under the Human Rights Act had been removed in a previous intervention by Suella Braverman as the attorney general. “The defence has only recently begun to be run … since the last attorney general closed down one door. Another door has been wrongly broken down in order [for defendants] to make this argument,” he said. But Henry Blaxland KC, for C, said it was a matter for a jury to decide whether a defendant honestly believed that the owner of a property would have consented to the damage caused. “This is a matter for the jury,” said Blaxland. He said to stop a defendant presenting the defence to jurors “would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury”. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the woman at the centre of the attorney general’s appeal said the attempt to remove the defence was an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Little said he was not seeking some kind of special regime for protesters but rather to seek clarification on the law because trial judges had been making inconsistent decisions on whether defendants charged with criminal damage could use the defence. “We submit that [the defence] is being used in a way that was not envisaged and cannot have been intended by parliament. If that is right, it leads to the conclusion that this section [of the act] is being interpreted too broadly and in reality wrongly.” Several protesters have been acquitted by juries after using the defence in the last year. Among them were climate protesters found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank and individuals acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. As attorney general, Suella Braverman successfully went to the appeal court in 2022 to remove the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998 following her anger over the jury acquittals of four individuals for toppling a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. Judgment was reserved until a later date. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest news Share Reuse this content A UK government attempt to remove one of the last remaining defences for climate protesters would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury, the court of appeal was told on Wednesday. The attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is arguing that one of the last available defences being used by environmental protesters should be removed. Prentis is making the appeal in the case of a defendant known as C, after a string of acquittals by juries of defendants for acts of criminal damage involving daubing paint on buildings. Tom Little KC for the attorney general, told the appeal court judges that use of the so-called “consent” defence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 was wrong and too broad an interpretation of the law . The defence, which relates to criminal damage only, involves a defendant arguing they had an honest belief that the owner of the property damaged would have consented if they had known the reasons why the action had been taken. Little said climate protesters had resorted to using the defence because another key defence under the Human Rights Act had been removed in a previous intervention by Suella Braverman as the attorney general. “The defence has only recently begun to be run … since the last attorney general closed down one door. Another door has been wrongly broken down in order [for defendants] to make this argument,” he said. But Henry Blaxland KC, for C, said it was a matter for a jury to decide whether a defendant honestly believed that the owner of a property would have consented to the damage caused. “This is a matter for the jury,” said Blaxland. He said to stop a defendant presenting the defence to jurors “would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury”. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the woman at the centre of the attorney general’s appeal said the attempt to remove the defence was an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Little said he was not seeking some kind of special regime for protesters but rather to seek clarification on the law because trial judges had been making inconsistent decisions on whether defendants charged with criminal damage could use the defence. “We submit that [the defence] is being used in a way that was not envisaged and cannot have been intended by parliament. If that is right, it leads to the conclusion that this section [of the act] is being interpreted too broadly and in reality wrongly.” Several protesters have been acquitted by juries after using the defence in the last year. Among them were climate protesters found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank and individuals acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. As attorney general, Suella Braverman successfully went to the appeal court in 2022 to remove the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998 following her anger over the jury acquittals of four individuals for toppling a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. Judgment was reserved until a later date. A UK government attempt to remove one of the last remaining defences for climate protesters would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury, the court of appeal was told on Wednesday. The attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is arguing that one of the last available defences being used by environmental protesters should be removed. Prentis is making the appeal in the case of a defendant known as C, after a string of acquittals by juries of defendants for acts of criminal damage involving daubing paint on buildings. Tom Little KC for the attorney general, told the appeal court judges that use of the so-called “consent” defence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 was wrong and too broad an interpretation of the law . The defence, which relates to criminal damage only, involves a defendant arguing they had an honest belief that the owner of the property damaged would have consented if they had known the reasons why the action had been taken. Little said climate protesters had resorted to using the defence because another key defence under the Human Rights Act had been removed in a previous intervention by Suella Braverman as the attorney general. “The defence has only recently begun to be run … since the last attorney general closed down one door. Another door has been wrongly broken down in order [for defendants] to make this argument,” he said. But Henry Blaxland KC, for C, said it was a matter for a jury to decide whether a defendant honestly believed that the owner of a property would have consented to the damage caused. “This is a matter for the jury,” said Blaxland. He said to stop a defendant presenting the defence to jurors “would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury”. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the woman at the centre of the attorney general’s appeal said the attempt to remove the defence was an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Little said he was not seeking some kind of special regime for protesters but rather to seek clarification on the law because trial judges had been making inconsistent decisions on whether defendants charged with criminal damage could use the defence. “We submit that [the defence] is being used in a way that was not envisaged and cannot have been intended by parliament. If that is right, it leads to the conclusion that this section [of the act] is being interpreted too broadly and in reality wrongly.” Several protesters have been acquitted by juries after using the defence in the last year. Among them were climate protesters found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank and individuals acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. As attorney general, Suella Braverman successfully went to the appeal court in 2022 to remove the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998 following her anger over the jury acquittals of four individuals for toppling a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. Judgment was reserved until a later date. A UK government attempt to remove one of the last remaining defences for climate protesters would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury, the court of appeal was told on Wednesday. The attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is arguing that one of the last available defences being used by environmental protesters should be removed. Prentis is making the appeal in the case of a defendant known as C, after a string of acquittals by juries of defendants for acts of criminal damage involving daubing paint on buildings. Tom Little KC for the attorney general, told the appeal court judges that use of the so-called “consent” defence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 was wrong and too broad an interpretation of the law . The defence, which relates to criminal damage only, involves a defendant arguing they had an honest belief that the owner of the property damaged would have consented if they had known the reasons why the action had been taken. Little said climate protesters had resorted to using the defence because another key defence under the Human Rights Act had been removed in a previous intervention by Suella Braverman as the attorney general. “The defence has only recently begun to be run … since the last attorney general closed down one door. Another door has been wrongly broken down in order [for defendants] to make this argument,” he said. But Henry Blaxland KC, for C, said it was a matter for a jury to decide whether a defendant honestly believed that the owner of a property would have consented to the damage caused. “This is a matter for the jury,” said Blaxland. He said to stop a defendant presenting the defence to jurors “would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury”. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the woman at the centre of the attorney general’s appeal said the attempt to remove the defence was an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants. The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year. Speaking to the Guardian, C said: “I was found not guilty by a jury after a long trial. I feel like the attorney general is trying to retrospectively challenge the jury’s decision. It feels like an assault on the rights of juries to acquit someone having listened to the evidence.” Little said he was not seeking some kind of special regime for protesters but rather to seek clarification on the law because trial judges had been making inconsistent decisions on whether defendants charged with criminal damage could use the defence. “We submit that [the defence] is being used in a way that was not envisaged and cannot have been intended by parliament. If that is right, it leads to the conclusion that this section [of the act] is being interpreted too broadly and in reality wrongly.” Several protesters have been acquitted by juries after using the defence in the last year. Among them were climate protesters found not guilty of criminal damage at the London headquarters of HSBC bank and individuals acquitted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage arising from their actions at the party headquarters of the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Individuals protesting for Palestine Action were also found not guilty by juries after using the consent defence last year. As attorney general, Suella Braverman successfully went to the appeal court in 2022 to remove the defence of proportionality for “significant” criminal damage under the Human Rights Act 1998 following her anger over the jury acquittals of four individuals for toppling a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. Judgment was reserved until a later date. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest news Share Reuse this content Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest news |
More than 30 MPs sign motion of no confidence in Commons speaker – as it happened
The Labour amendment has been approved, and gone through without a division. And the main motion as amended (the Labour text – the SNP version was wiped out by the Labout amendment) also went through unopposed. |
Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos
3:55 Commons speaker 'regrets' decision to allow Labour vote on Gaza ceasefire – video This article is more than 1 year old Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos This article is more than 1 year old Government boycotts precedent-breaking vote that saved Labour mutiny, leaving Tory and SNP MPs to aim fury at Lindsay Hoyle UK politics live – latest updates The speaker of the House of Commons issued an unprecedented apology after a fractious and occasionally chaotic parliamentary debate on Gaza. MPs voted unanimously for a Labour motion calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza, but only after Lindsay Hoyle upended years of parliamentary precedent to allow the party to bring its motion to a vote. Conservative and Scottish National party MPs reacted with fury to Hoyle’s decision, which the speaker said was designed to air a wide range of opinions but which also allowed the Labour leader to dodge the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Some are now trying to unseat Hoyle while others are urging the Conservatives to ignore common practice and stand against him at the general election. In the end Labour’s amendment passed unopposed after Tory and SNP MPs walked out of the chamber. Starmer afterwards accused them of “choosing political games over serious solutions”. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report Hoyle apologised to MPs at the end of a six-hour debate marked by parliamentary chicanery, frequent shouting across the Commons chamber and accusations of partisanship on the part of the speaker. While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more In an unexpected statement, the speaker told a packed chamber: “It is clear that today did not show the house at its best. I will reflect on my part in that of course.” He added: “I have tried to do what I thought was the right thing for all sides of this House. It is regrettable, and I apologise, that the decision didn’t end up in the place that I wished.” The apology came at the end of a dramatic day in Westminster which saw Starmer personally lobby the Commons speaker to allow his motion to come to a vote. Labour MPs had warned Starmer that up to 100 of them were ready to rebel against party orders and vote for a Scottish National party amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire unless Labour offered its own similar alternative. Sources have said that at least two shadow cabinet ministers were ready to resign over the issue. Labour announced on Tuesday it would push for an amendment calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” , which it said could only happen under certain circumstances, such as if Hamas no longer threatened violence against Israel. The wording of the Labour amendment was enough to persuade dozens of MPs to agree to vote for it instead of the SNP motion, which Labour has opposed on the grounds that it is not clear enough about the conditions necessary for a ceasefire. Labour MPs warned however that if they were denied the chance to vote for their own amendment they would vote for the SNP’s motion, in what would have amounted to the biggest direct challenge to Starmer’s leadership since he took over. With hours to go before the vote, Hoyle had still not decided whether to call a proposed government amendment to the motion, the Labour one, or both. After a last-minute intervention from Starmer himself, the speaker decided to call both – a decision which was greeted with fury on the Conservative and SNP benches. Hoyle said later he had been persuaded to allow both amendments because of threats to the personal safety of many MPs. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Several Labour members who abstained on a similar SNP motion in November say they have since faced abuse and personal threats, and with hundreds of protesters gathered outside Westminster, Hoyle was persuaded to give them a route out. He faced criticism however even from his own clerk Tom Goldsmith who wrote a letter explaining his view that the decision was “a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments”. The Conservative MP William Wragg then tabled a parliamentary motion expressing no confidence in the speaker. By Wednesday evening, 33 MPs had signed Wragg’s motion, mostly from the SNP. After an often bitter Commons debate, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons, announced the government would not participate in the votes, paving the way for the Labour amendment to pass unopposed. Mordaunt launched a bitter attack on Hoyle as she announced her decision, saying he had “hijacked” the debate and “undermined the confidence of the Commons”. She later accepted Hoyle’s apology, however, saying: “You’re our speaker, and we wish you to defend the rights of all members of this House.” Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader in Westminster, said: “We have seen the SNP opposition day turn into a Labour party opposition day, and I’m afraid that that is treating myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National party with complete and utter contempt. I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.” But while Hoyle will continue facing the anger of many MPs, Labour officials believe his position is secure and that much of the government anger was being confected for effect. Some warned that the row over obscure parliamentary process during a debate about the war in Gaza risked undermining the reputation of the Commons in voters’ eyes. One minister admitted: “We’re not as angry as we’re pretending.” Explore more on these topics House of Commons Israel-Gaza war Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives news Share Reuse this content 3:55 Commons speaker 'regrets' decision to allow Labour vote on Gaza ceasefire – video This article is more than 1 year old Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos This article is more than 1 year old Government boycotts precedent-breaking vote that saved Labour mutiny, leaving Tory and SNP MPs to aim fury at Lindsay Hoyle UK politics live – latest updates The speaker of the House of Commons issued an unprecedented apology after a fractious and occasionally chaotic parliamentary debate on Gaza. MPs voted unanimously for a Labour motion calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza, but only after Lindsay Hoyle upended years of parliamentary precedent to allow the party to bring its motion to a vote. Conservative and Scottish National party MPs reacted with fury to Hoyle’s decision, which the speaker said was designed to air a wide range of opinions but which also allowed the Labour leader to dodge the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Some are now trying to unseat Hoyle while others are urging the Conservatives to ignore common practice and stand against him at the general election. In the end Labour’s amendment passed unopposed after Tory and SNP MPs walked out of the chamber. Starmer afterwards accused them of “choosing political games over serious solutions”. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report Hoyle apologised to MPs at the end of a six-hour debate marked by parliamentary chicanery, frequent shouting across the Commons chamber and accusations of partisanship on the part of the speaker. While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more In an unexpected statement, the speaker told a packed chamber: “It is clear that today did not show the house at its best. I will reflect on my part in that of course.” He added: “I have tried to do what I thought was the right thing for all sides of this House. It is regrettable, and I apologise, that the decision didn’t end up in the place that I wished.” The apology came at the end of a dramatic day in Westminster which saw Starmer personally lobby the Commons speaker to allow his motion to come to a vote. Labour MPs had warned Starmer that up to 100 of them were ready to rebel against party orders and vote for a Scottish National party amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire unless Labour offered its own similar alternative. Sources have said that at least two shadow cabinet ministers were ready to resign over the issue. Labour announced on Tuesday it would push for an amendment calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” , which it said could only happen under certain circumstances, such as if Hamas no longer threatened violence against Israel. The wording of the Labour amendment was enough to persuade dozens of MPs to agree to vote for it instead of the SNP motion, which Labour has opposed on the grounds that it is not clear enough about the conditions necessary for a ceasefire. Labour MPs warned however that if they were denied the chance to vote for their own amendment they would vote for the SNP’s motion, in what would have amounted to the biggest direct challenge to Starmer’s leadership since he took over. With hours to go before the vote, Hoyle had still not decided whether to call a proposed government amendment to the motion, the Labour one, or both. After a last-minute intervention from Starmer himself, the speaker decided to call both – a decision which was greeted with fury on the Conservative and SNP benches. Hoyle said later he had been persuaded to allow both amendments because of threats to the personal safety of many MPs. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Several Labour members who abstained on a similar SNP motion in November say they have since faced abuse and personal threats, and with hundreds of protesters gathered outside Westminster, Hoyle was persuaded to give them a route out. He faced criticism however even from his own clerk Tom Goldsmith who wrote a letter explaining his view that the decision was “a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments”. The Conservative MP William Wragg then tabled a parliamentary motion expressing no confidence in the speaker. By Wednesday evening, 33 MPs had signed Wragg’s motion, mostly from the SNP. After an often bitter Commons debate, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons, announced the government would not participate in the votes, paving the way for the Labour amendment to pass unopposed. Mordaunt launched a bitter attack on Hoyle as she announced her decision, saying he had “hijacked” the debate and “undermined the confidence of the Commons”. She later accepted Hoyle’s apology, however, saying: “You’re our speaker, and we wish you to defend the rights of all members of this House.” Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader in Westminster, said: “We have seen the SNP opposition day turn into a Labour party opposition day, and I’m afraid that that is treating myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National party with complete and utter contempt. I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.” But while Hoyle will continue facing the anger of many MPs, Labour officials believe his position is secure and that much of the government anger was being confected for effect. Some warned that the row over obscure parliamentary process during a debate about the war in Gaza risked undermining the reputation of the Commons in voters’ eyes. One minister admitted: “We’re not as angry as we’re pretending.” Explore more on these topics House of Commons Israel-Gaza war Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives news Share Reuse this content 3:55 Commons speaker 'regrets' decision to allow Labour vote on Gaza ceasefire – video 3:55 Commons speaker 'regrets' decision to allow Labour vote on Gaza ceasefire – video 3:55 Commons speaker 'regrets' decision to allow Labour vote on Gaza ceasefire – video 3:55 Commons speaker 'regrets' decision to allow Labour vote on Gaza ceasefire – video This article is more than 1 year old Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Government boycotts precedent-breaking vote that saved Labour mutiny, leaving Tory and SNP MPs to aim fury at Lindsay Hoyle UK politics live – latest updates Government boycotts precedent-breaking vote that saved Labour mutiny, leaving Tory and SNP MPs to aim fury at Lindsay Hoyle UK politics live – latest updates Government boycotts precedent-breaking vote that saved Labour mutiny, leaving Tory and SNP MPs to aim fury at Lindsay Hoyle The speaker of the House of Commons issued an unprecedented apology after a fractious and occasionally chaotic parliamentary debate on Gaza. MPs voted unanimously for a Labour motion calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza, but only after Lindsay Hoyle upended years of parliamentary precedent to allow the party to bring its motion to a vote. Conservative and Scottish National party MPs reacted with fury to Hoyle’s decision, which the speaker said was designed to air a wide range of opinions but which also allowed the Labour leader to dodge the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Some are now trying to unseat Hoyle while others are urging the Conservatives to ignore common practice and stand against him at the general election. In the end Labour’s amendment passed unopposed after Tory and SNP MPs walked out of the chamber. Starmer afterwards accused them of “choosing political games over serious solutions”. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report Hoyle apologised to MPs at the end of a six-hour debate marked by parliamentary chicanery, frequent shouting across the Commons chamber and accusations of partisanship on the part of the speaker. While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more In an unexpected statement, the speaker told a packed chamber: “It is clear that today did not show the house at its best. I will reflect on my part in that of course.” He added: “I have tried to do what I thought was the right thing for all sides of this House. It is regrettable, and I apologise, that the decision didn’t end up in the place that I wished.” The apology came at the end of a dramatic day in Westminster which saw Starmer personally lobby the Commons speaker to allow his motion to come to a vote. Labour MPs had warned Starmer that up to 100 of them were ready to rebel against party orders and vote for a Scottish National party amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire unless Labour offered its own similar alternative. Sources have said that at least two shadow cabinet ministers were ready to resign over the issue. Labour announced on Tuesday it would push for an amendment calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” , which it said could only happen under certain circumstances, such as if Hamas no longer threatened violence against Israel. The wording of the Labour amendment was enough to persuade dozens of MPs to agree to vote for it instead of the SNP motion, which Labour has opposed on the grounds that it is not clear enough about the conditions necessary for a ceasefire. Labour MPs warned however that if they were denied the chance to vote for their own amendment they would vote for the SNP’s motion, in what would have amounted to the biggest direct challenge to Starmer’s leadership since he took over. With hours to go before the vote, Hoyle had still not decided whether to call a proposed government amendment to the motion, the Labour one, or both. After a last-minute intervention from Starmer himself, the speaker decided to call both – a decision which was greeted with fury on the Conservative and SNP benches. Hoyle said later he had been persuaded to allow both amendments because of threats to the personal safety of many MPs. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Several Labour members who abstained on a similar SNP motion in November say they have since faced abuse and personal threats, and with hundreds of protesters gathered outside Westminster, Hoyle was persuaded to give them a route out. He faced criticism however even from his own clerk Tom Goldsmith who wrote a letter explaining his view that the decision was “a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments”. The Conservative MP William Wragg then tabled a parliamentary motion expressing no confidence in the speaker. By Wednesday evening, 33 MPs had signed Wragg’s motion, mostly from the SNP. After an often bitter Commons debate, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons, announced the government would not participate in the votes, paving the way for the Labour amendment to pass unopposed. Mordaunt launched a bitter attack on Hoyle as she announced her decision, saying he had “hijacked” the debate and “undermined the confidence of the Commons”. She later accepted Hoyle’s apology, however, saying: “You’re our speaker, and we wish you to defend the rights of all members of this House.” Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader in Westminster, said: “We have seen the SNP opposition day turn into a Labour party opposition day, and I’m afraid that that is treating myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National party with complete and utter contempt. I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.” But while Hoyle will continue facing the anger of many MPs, Labour officials believe his position is secure and that much of the government anger was being confected for effect. Some warned that the row over obscure parliamentary process during a debate about the war in Gaza risked undermining the reputation of the Commons in voters’ eyes. One minister admitted: “We’re not as angry as we’re pretending.” Explore more on these topics House of Commons Israel-Gaza war Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives news Share Reuse this content The speaker of the House of Commons issued an unprecedented apology after a fractious and occasionally chaotic parliamentary debate on Gaza. MPs voted unanimously for a Labour motion calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza, but only after Lindsay Hoyle upended years of parliamentary precedent to allow the party to bring its motion to a vote. Conservative and Scottish National party MPs reacted with fury to Hoyle’s decision, which the speaker said was designed to air a wide range of opinions but which also allowed the Labour leader to dodge the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Some are now trying to unseat Hoyle while others are urging the Conservatives to ignore common practice and stand against him at the general election. In the end Labour’s amendment passed unopposed after Tory and SNP MPs walked out of the chamber. Starmer afterwards accused them of “choosing political games over serious solutions”. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report Hoyle apologised to MPs at the end of a six-hour debate marked by parliamentary chicanery, frequent shouting across the Commons chamber and accusations of partisanship on the part of the speaker. While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more In an unexpected statement, the speaker told a packed chamber: “It is clear that today did not show the house at its best. I will reflect on my part in that of course.” He added: “I have tried to do what I thought was the right thing for all sides of this House. It is regrettable, and I apologise, that the decision didn’t end up in the place that I wished.” The apology came at the end of a dramatic day in Westminster which saw Starmer personally lobby the Commons speaker to allow his motion to come to a vote. Labour MPs had warned Starmer that up to 100 of them were ready to rebel against party orders and vote for a Scottish National party amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire unless Labour offered its own similar alternative. Sources have said that at least two shadow cabinet ministers were ready to resign over the issue. Labour announced on Tuesday it would push for an amendment calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” , which it said could only happen under certain circumstances, such as if Hamas no longer threatened violence against Israel. The wording of the Labour amendment was enough to persuade dozens of MPs to agree to vote for it instead of the SNP motion, which Labour has opposed on the grounds that it is not clear enough about the conditions necessary for a ceasefire. Labour MPs warned however that if they were denied the chance to vote for their own amendment they would vote for the SNP’s motion, in what would have amounted to the biggest direct challenge to Starmer’s leadership since he took over. With hours to go before the vote, Hoyle had still not decided whether to call a proposed government amendment to the motion, the Labour one, or both. After a last-minute intervention from Starmer himself, the speaker decided to call both – a decision which was greeted with fury on the Conservative and SNP benches. Hoyle said later he had been persuaded to allow both amendments because of threats to the personal safety of many MPs. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Several Labour members who abstained on a similar SNP motion in November say they have since faced abuse and personal threats, and with hundreds of protesters gathered outside Westminster, Hoyle was persuaded to give them a route out. He faced criticism however even from his own clerk Tom Goldsmith who wrote a letter explaining his view that the decision was “a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments”. The Conservative MP William Wragg then tabled a parliamentary motion expressing no confidence in the speaker. By Wednesday evening, 33 MPs had signed Wragg’s motion, mostly from the SNP. After an often bitter Commons debate, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons, announced the government would not participate in the votes, paving the way for the Labour amendment to pass unopposed. Mordaunt launched a bitter attack on Hoyle as she announced her decision, saying he had “hijacked” the debate and “undermined the confidence of the Commons”. She later accepted Hoyle’s apology, however, saying: “You’re our speaker, and we wish you to defend the rights of all members of this House.” Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader in Westminster, said: “We have seen the SNP opposition day turn into a Labour party opposition day, and I’m afraid that that is treating myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National party with complete and utter contempt. I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.” But while Hoyle will continue facing the anger of many MPs, Labour officials believe his position is secure and that much of the government anger was being confected for effect. Some warned that the row over obscure parliamentary process during a debate about the war in Gaza risked undermining the reputation of the Commons in voters’ eyes. One minister admitted: “We’re not as angry as we’re pretending.” Explore more on these topics House of Commons Israel-Gaza war Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives news Share Reuse this content The speaker of the House of Commons issued an unprecedented apology after a fractious and occasionally chaotic parliamentary debate on Gaza. MPs voted unanimously for a Labour motion calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza, but only after Lindsay Hoyle upended years of parliamentary precedent to allow the party to bring its motion to a vote. Conservative and Scottish National party MPs reacted with fury to Hoyle’s decision, which the speaker said was designed to air a wide range of opinions but which also allowed the Labour leader to dodge the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Some are now trying to unseat Hoyle while others are urging the Conservatives to ignore common practice and stand against him at the general election. In the end Labour’s amendment passed unopposed after Tory and SNP MPs walked out of the chamber. Starmer afterwards accused them of “choosing political games over serious solutions”. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report Hoyle apologised to MPs at the end of a six-hour debate marked by parliamentary chicanery, frequent shouting across the Commons chamber and accusations of partisanship on the part of the speaker. While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more In an unexpected statement, the speaker told a packed chamber: “It is clear that today did not show the house at its best. I will reflect on my part in that of course.” He added: “I have tried to do what I thought was the right thing for all sides of this House. It is regrettable, and I apologise, that the decision didn’t end up in the place that I wished.” The apology came at the end of a dramatic day in Westminster which saw Starmer personally lobby the Commons speaker to allow his motion to come to a vote. Labour MPs had warned Starmer that up to 100 of them were ready to rebel against party orders and vote for a Scottish National party amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire unless Labour offered its own similar alternative. Sources have said that at least two shadow cabinet ministers were ready to resign over the issue. Labour announced on Tuesday it would push for an amendment calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” , which it said could only happen under certain circumstances, such as if Hamas no longer threatened violence against Israel. The wording of the Labour amendment was enough to persuade dozens of MPs to agree to vote for it instead of the SNP motion, which Labour has opposed on the grounds that it is not clear enough about the conditions necessary for a ceasefire. Labour MPs warned however that if they were denied the chance to vote for their own amendment they would vote for the SNP’s motion, in what would have amounted to the biggest direct challenge to Starmer’s leadership since he took over. With hours to go before the vote, Hoyle had still not decided whether to call a proposed government amendment to the motion, the Labour one, or both. After a last-minute intervention from Starmer himself, the speaker decided to call both – a decision which was greeted with fury on the Conservative and SNP benches. Hoyle said later he had been persuaded to allow both amendments because of threats to the personal safety of many MPs. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Several Labour members who abstained on a similar SNP motion in November say they have since faced abuse and personal threats, and with hundreds of protesters gathered outside Westminster, Hoyle was persuaded to give them a route out. He faced criticism however even from his own clerk Tom Goldsmith who wrote a letter explaining his view that the decision was “a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments”. The Conservative MP William Wragg then tabled a parliamentary motion expressing no confidence in the speaker. By Wednesday evening, 33 MPs had signed Wragg’s motion, mostly from the SNP. After an often bitter Commons debate, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons, announced the government would not participate in the votes, paving the way for the Labour amendment to pass unopposed. Mordaunt launched a bitter attack on Hoyle as she announced her decision, saying he had “hijacked” the debate and “undermined the confidence of the Commons”. She later accepted Hoyle’s apology, however, saying: “You’re our speaker, and we wish you to defend the rights of all members of this House.” Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader in Westminster, said: “We have seen the SNP opposition day turn into a Labour party opposition day, and I’m afraid that that is treating myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National party with complete and utter contempt. I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.” But while Hoyle will continue facing the anger of many MPs, Labour officials believe his position is secure and that much of the government anger was being confected for effect. Some warned that the row over obscure parliamentary process during a debate about the war in Gaza risked undermining the reputation of the Commons in voters’ eyes. One minister admitted: “We’re not as angry as we’re pretending.” The speaker of the House of Commons issued an unprecedented apology after a fractious and occasionally chaotic parliamentary debate on Gaza. MPs voted unanimously for a Labour motion calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza, but only after Lindsay Hoyle upended years of parliamentary precedent to allow the party to bring its motion to a vote. Conservative and Scottish National party MPs reacted with fury to Hoyle’s decision, which the speaker said was designed to air a wide range of opinions but which also allowed the Labour leader to dodge the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Some are now trying to unseat Hoyle while others are urging the Conservatives to ignore common practice and stand against him at the general election. In the end Labour’s amendment passed unopposed after Tory and SNP MPs walked out of the chamber. Starmer afterwards accused them of “choosing political games over serious solutions”. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report Hoyle apologised to MPs at the end of a six-hour debate marked by parliamentary chicanery, frequent shouting across the Commons chamber and accusations of partisanship on the part of the speaker. While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more In an unexpected statement, the speaker told a packed chamber: “It is clear that today did not show the house at its best. I will reflect on my part in that of course.” He added: “I have tried to do what I thought was the right thing for all sides of this House. It is regrettable, and I apologise, that the decision didn’t end up in the place that I wished.” The apology came at the end of a dramatic day in Westminster which saw Starmer personally lobby the Commons speaker to allow his motion to come to a vote. Labour MPs had warned Starmer that up to 100 of them were ready to rebel against party orders and vote for a Scottish National party amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire unless Labour offered its own similar alternative. Sources have said that at least two shadow cabinet ministers were ready to resign over the issue. Labour announced on Tuesday it would push for an amendment calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” , which it said could only happen under certain circumstances, such as if Hamas no longer threatened violence against Israel. The wording of the Labour amendment was enough to persuade dozens of MPs to agree to vote for it instead of the SNP motion, which Labour has opposed on the grounds that it is not clear enough about the conditions necessary for a ceasefire. Labour MPs warned however that if they were denied the chance to vote for their own amendment they would vote for the SNP’s motion, in what would have amounted to the biggest direct challenge to Starmer’s leadership since he took over. With hours to go before the vote, Hoyle had still not decided whether to call a proposed government amendment to the motion, the Labour one, or both. After a last-minute intervention from Starmer himself, the speaker decided to call both – a decision which was greeted with fury on the Conservative and SNP benches. Hoyle said later he had been persuaded to allow both amendments because of threats to the personal safety of many MPs. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Several Labour members who abstained on a similar SNP motion in November say they have since faced abuse and personal threats, and with hundreds of protesters gathered outside Westminster, Hoyle was persuaded to give them a route out. He faced criticism however even from his own clerk Tom Goldsmith who wrote a letter explaining his view that the decision was “a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments”. The Conservative MP William Wragg then tabled a parliamentary motion expressing no confidence in the speaker. By Wednesday evening, 33 MPs had signed Wragg’s motion, mostly from the SNP. After an often bitter Commons debate, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons, announced the government would not participate in the votes, paving the way for the Labour amendment to pass unopposed. Mordaunt launched a bitter attack on Hoyle as she announced her decision, saying he had “hijacked” the debate and “undermined the confidence of the Commons”. She later accepted Hoyle’s apology, however, saying: “You’re our speaker, and we wish you to defend the rights of all members of this House.” Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader in Westminster, said: “We have seen the SNP opposition day turn into a Labour party opposition day, and I’m afraid that that is treating myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National party with complete and utter contempt. I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.” But while Hoyle will continue facing the anger of many MPs, Labour officials believe his position is secure and that much of the government anger was being confected for effect. Some warned that the row over obscure parliamentary process during a debate about the war in Gaza risked undermining the reputation of the Commons in voters’ eyes. One minister admitted: “We’re not as angry as we’re pretending.” The speaker of the House of Commons issued an unprecedented apology after a fractious and occasionally chaotic parliamentary debate on Gaza. MPs voted unanimously for a Labour motion calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza, but only after Lindsay Hoyle upended years of parliamentary precedent to allow the party to bring its motion to a vote. Conservative and Scottish National party MPs reacted with fury to Hoyle’s decision, which the speaker said was designed to air a wide range of opinions but which also allowed the Labour leader to dodge the biggest rebellion of his leadership. Some are now trying to unseat Hoyle while others are urging the Conservatives to ignore common practice and stand against him at the general election. In the end Labour’s amendment passed unopposed after Tory and SNP MPs walked out of the chamber. Starmer afterwards accused them of “choosing political games over serious solutions”. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report Hoyle apologised to MPs at the end of a six-hour debate marked by parliamentary chicanery, frequent shouting across the Commons chamber and accusations of partisanship on the part of the speaker. While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace In an unexpected statement, the speaker told a packed chamber: “It is clear that today did not show the house at its best. I will reflect on my part in that of course.” He added: “I have tried to do what I thought was the right thing for all sides of this House. It is regrettable, and I apologise, that the decision didn’t end up in the place that I wished.” The apology came at the end of a dramatic day in Westminster which saw Starmer personally lobby the Commons speaker to allow his motion to come to a vote. Labour MPs had warned Starmer that up to 100 of them were ready to rebel against party orders and vote for a Scottish National party amendment calling for an immediate ceasefire unless Labour offered its own similar alternative. Sources have said that at least two shadow cabinet ministers were ready to resign over the issue. Labour announced on Tuesday it would push for an amendment calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” , which it said could only happen under certain circumstances, such as if Hamas no longer threatened violence against Israel. The wording of the Labour amendment was enough to persuade dozens of MPs to agree to vote for it instead of the SNP motion, which Labour has opposed on the grounds that it is not clear enough about the conditions necessary for a ceasefire. Labour MPs warned however that if they were denied the chance to vote for their own amendment they would vote for the SNP’s motion, in what would have amounted to the biggest direct challenge to Starmer’s leadership since he took over. With hours to go before the vote, Hoyle had still not decided whether to call a proposed government amendment to the motion, the Labour one, or both. After a last-minute intervention from Starmer himself, the speaker decided to call both – a decision which was greeted with fury on the Conservative and SNP benches. Hoyle said later he had been persuaded to allow both amendments because of threats to the personal safety of many MPs. Several Labour members who abstained on a similar SNP motion in November say they have since faced abuse and personal threats, and with hundreds of protesters gathered outside Westminster, Hoyle was persuaded to give them a route out. He faced criticism however even from his own clerk Tom Goldsmith who wrote a letter explaining his view that the decision was “a departure from the long-established convention for dealing with such amendments”. The Conservative MP William Wragg then tabled a parliamentary motion expressing no confidence in the speaker. By Wednesday evening, 33 MPs had signed Wragg’s motion, mostly from the SNP. After an often bitter Commons debate, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons, announced the government would not participate in the votes, paving the way for the Labour amendment to pass unopposed. Mordaunt launched a bitter attack on Hoyle as she announced her decision, saying he had “hijacked” the debate and “undermined the confidence of the Commons”. She later accepted Hoyle’s apology, however, saying: “You’re our speaker, and we wish you to defend the rights of all members of this House.” Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader in Westminster, said: “We have seen the SNP opposition day turn into a Labour party opposition day, and I’m afraid that that is treating myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National party with complete and utter contempt. I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.” But while Hoyle will continue facing the anger of many MPs, Labour officials believe his position is secure and that much of the government anger was being confected for effect. Some warned that the row over obscure parliamentary process during a debate about the war in Gaza risked undermining the reputation of the Commons in voters’ eyes. One minister admitted: “We’re not as angry as we’re pretending.” Explore more on these topics House of Commons Israel-Gaza war Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives news Share Reuse this content House of Commons Israel-Gaza war Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives news |
How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis
Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger View image in fullscreen Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger This article is more than 1 year old Analysis How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis This article is more than 1 year old Kiran Stacey Political correspondent A last-minute intervention proved crucial as Starmer faced the biggest rebellion of his leadership On Wednesday lunchtime Keir Starmer was facing the biggest crisis of his career. Earlier in the week, he had been warned that as many as 100 of his MPs – including at least two of his shadow cabinet – were willing to rebel by voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza unless Labour brought forward its own amendment calling for one. Having agreed to publish exactly such an amendment , the Labour leader now faced another hurdle: the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was being advised not to pick it and instead call a different one from the government. Hours away from the biggest rebellion of his leadership, Starmer decided to intervene personally and visited Hoyle in his office behind the House of Commons chamber. Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Read more Those briefed on the meeting said the Labour leader warned Hoyle that Labour MPs’ security was at risk. Many had been deluged by criticisms, threats and abuse since abstaining on a similar SNP motion in November . With hundreds of protesters congregating outside parliament, they worried worse might be to come. After a tense meeting, and with Labour MPs desperately stalling inside the chamber, Hoyle eventually agreed. As the Gaza debate started, the speaker announced he would call both the Labour and government amendments, prompting fury on the government and SNP benches and huge relief on the Labour ones. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report After a dramatic day in parliament, the speaker’s standing, at least on the government’s benches, had been left badly damaged. Starmer, however, had pulled off a political coup, eventually avoiding any rebellion at all after the government decided to pull out entirely from the evening’s votes. “We came minutes away from disaster,” said one senior Labour official. “Thank God for Lindsay Hoyle.” While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more Wednesday’s parliamentary action was the culmination of weeks of wrangling on the Labour benches, as MPs petitioned the Labour leader to change tack on Gaza while his advisers warned him against stepping out of line with the perceived international consensus. The last ceasefire vote in November had triggered the biggest rebellion of Starmer’s tenure, with 56 Labour MPs defying orders to vote for the SNP motion including 10 frontbenchers. Since then, many of those MPs who stayed loyal have faced protests outside their constituency offices and even their homes. Their arguments about parliamentary process and the difference between a ceasefire and Labour’s proposal of a “humanitarian pause” proved ineffective as the death toll in Gaza mounted. Meanwhile, Starmer’s position was changing. He began to argue for an immediate end to the violence and a “ceasefire that lasts”. But as he travelled to the Munich Security Conference last week alongside his shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, he was under pressure to go further and argue explicitly for an “immediate ceasefire”. As Starmer, Lammy and Healey met international leaders and well-connected diplomats in Munich, they realised international opinion was beginning to shift. With the Israelis beginning to threaten Rafah, western countries were becoming more robust in their calls for an end to the fighting. A turning point came last Thursday, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand published a joint statement urging an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, which gave the Labour leader cover to use the same language. “Don’t underestimate how significant that was,” said one senior Labour official. “Having our Five Eyes partners call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire definitely helped shape our thinking.” But as Starmer returned to Westminster on Monday he had still not decided what form of words to propose in an alternative to the SNP motion. Frontbenchers, led by the shadow justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, were dispatched to warn him that anything less than a call for an immediate ceasefire would trigger a massive rebellion. “Many MPs who remained loyal to him last time told him they couldn’t do so again unless they were allowed to vote for an immediate ceasefire,” said one Labour source. “The situation on the ground has only got worse since then, as has the pressure on ordinary members.” Starmer was persuaded, and on Tuesday afternoon his whips published their amendment which called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” before laying out exactly in what circumstances one could be expected to happen. The trouble was not yet over for the Labour leader, however. During a meeting in parliament, Starmer and Lammy took shadow ministers through their reasoning. But elsewhere on the estate, shadow foreign minister Wayne David endured a much tougher time as he explained the new position to backbenchers. Several MPs, including Jess Phillips, who resigned in November as a shadow minister to vote with the SNP, and the backbenchers Sam Tarry and Paul Blomfield, criticised the leadership. Some were angry that the new amendment had too many caveats. Many others were furious about how long it had taken to get the party to take the position it was now taking, and how many had seen their careers damaged in the meantime. “The frontbench took an absolute battering,” said one person who attended the meeting. Starmer had an even bigger problem. Labour officials predicted correctly that the government would publish its own amendment to the SNP motion, which under parliamentary precedent would trump the Labour one. If Labour MPs were not able to vote for their own amendment calling for an “immediate ceasefire”, dozens were still willing to vote for the SNP motion. Labour MPs launched a frantic lobbying campaign aimed at the speaker. Unless Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment to come to a vote, they said, he would be forcing them to remain loyal to their party or put their own safety at risk. Several told him of the threats they had faced since abstaining on the SNP motion last time. The party denied reports that Labour whips had even threatened to lead an effort to deselect him as speaker if he did not call the Labour amendment. Starmer’s last-minute intervention proved crucial. Finally, Hoyle entered the chamber and announced his decision to abandon precedent and call both the Labour and the government amendments. The Tory and SNP benches erupted in anger, while shadow ministers slumped in relief. 2:46 MPs jeer as speaker chooses Labour amendment on Gaza ceasefire motion – video The debate eventually began around an hour after it was expected. Five hours later, the Labour amendment passed easily with no resistance from the government. Starmer had averted disaster and emerged stronger. “We came very close to a huge rebellion,” said one Labour source. “But in the end Starmer’s authority is stronger than it was before today.” Explore more on these topics Keir Starmer Labour House of Commons Commons speaker Gaza Israel-Gaza war analysis Share Reuse this content Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger View image in fullscreen Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger This article is more than 1 year old Analysis How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis This article is more than 1 year old Kiran Stacey Political correspondent A last-minute intervention proved crucial as Starmer faced the biggest rebellion of his leadership On Wednesday lunchtime Keir Starmer was facing the biggest crisis of his career. Earlier in the week, he had been warned that as many as 100 of his MPs – including at least two of his shadow cabinet – were willing to rebel by voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza unless Labour brought forward its own amendment calling for one. Having agreed to publish exactly such an amendment , the Labour leader now faced another hurdle: the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was being advised not to pick it and instead call a different one from the government. Hours away from the biggest rebellion of his leadership, Starmer decided to intervene personally and visited Hoyle in his office behind the House of Commons chamber. Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Read more Those briefed on the meeting said the Labour leader warned Hoyle that Labour MPs’ security was at risk. Many had been deluged by criticisms, threats and abuse since abstaining on a similar SNP motion in November . With hundreds of protesters congregating outside parliament, they worried worse might be to come. After a tense meeting, and with Labour MPs desperately stalling inside the chamber, Hoyle eventually agreed. As the Gaza debate started, the speaker announced he would call both the Labour and government amendments, prompting fury on the government and SNP benches and huge relief on the Labour ones. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report After a dramatic day in parliament, the speaker’s standing, at least on the government’s benches, had been left badly damaged. Starmer, however, had pulled off a political coup, eventually avoiding any rebellion at all after the government decided to pull out entirely from the evening’s votes. “We came minutes away from disaster,” said one senior Labour official. “Thank God for Lindsay Hoyle.” While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more Wednesday’s parliamentary action was the culmination of weeks of wrangling on the Labour benches, as MPs petitioned the Labour leader to change tack on Gaza while his advisers warned him against stepping out of line with the perceived international consensus. The last ceasefire vote in November had triggered the biggest rebellion of Starmer’s tenure, with 56 Labour MPs defying orders to vote for the SNP motion including 10 frontbenchers. Since then, many of those MPs who stayed loyal have faced protests outside their constituency offices and even their homes. Their arguments about parliamentary process and the difference between a ceasefire and Labour’s proposal of a “humanitarian pause” proved ineffective as the death toll in Gaza mounted. Meanwhile, Starmer’s position was changing. He began to argue for an immediate end to the violence and a “ceasefire that lasts”. But as he travelled to the Munich Security Conference last week alongside his shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, he was under pressure to go further and argue explicitly for an “immediate ceasefire”. As Starmer, Lammy and Healey met international leaders and well-connected diplomats in Munich, they realised international opinion was beginning to shift. With the Israelis beginning to threaten Rafah, western countries were becoming more robust in their calls for an end to the fighting. A turning point came last Thursday, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand published a joint statement urging an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, which gave the Labour leader cover to use the same language. “Don’t underestimate how significant that was,” said one senior Labour official. “Having our Five Eyes partners call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire definitely helped shape our thinking.” But as Starmer returned to Westminster on Monday he had still not decided what form of words to propose in an alternative to the SNP motion. Frontbenchers, led by the shadow justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, were dispatched to warn him that anything less than a call for an immediate ceasefire would trigger a massive rebellion. “Many MPs who remained loyal to him last time told him they couldn’t do so again unless they were allowed to vote for an immediate ceasefire,” said one Labour source. “The situation on the ground has only got worse since then, as has the pressure on ordinary members.” Starmer was persuaded, and on Tuesday afternoon his whips published their amendment which called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” before laying out exactly in what circumstances one could be expected to happen. The trouble was not yet over for the Labour leader, however. During a meeting in parliament, Starmer and Lammy took shadow ministers through their reasoning. But elsewhere on the estate, shadow foreign minister Wayne David endured a much tougher time as he explained the new position to backbenchers. Several MPs, including Jess Phillips, who resigned in November as a shadow minister to vote with the SNP, and the backbenchers Sam Tarry and Paul Blomfield, criticised the leadership. Some were angry that the new amendment had too many caveats. Many others were furious about how long it had taken to get the party to take the position it was now taking, and how many had seen their careers damaged in the meantime. “The frontbench took an absolute battering,” said one person who attended the meeting. Starmer had an even bigger problem. Labour officials predicted correctly that the government would publish its own amendment to the SNP motion, which under parliamentary precedent would trump the Labour one. If Labour MPs were not able to vote for their own amendment calling for an “immediate ceasefire”, dozens were still willing to vote for the SNP motion. Labour MPs launched a frantic lobbying campaign aimed at the speaker. Unless Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment to come to a vote, they said, he would be forcing them to remain loyal to their party or put their own safety at risk. Several told him of the threats they had faced since abstaining on the SNP motion last time. The party denied reports that Labour whips had even threatened to lead an effort to deselect him as speaker if he did not call the Labour amendment. Starmer’s last-minute intervention proved crucial. Finally, Hoyle entered the chamber and announced his decision to abandon precedent and call both the Labour and the government amendments. The Tory and SNP benches erupted in anger, while shadow ministers slumped in relief. 2:46 MPs jeer as speaker chooses Labour amendment on Gaza ceasefire motion – video The debate eventually began around an hour after it was expected. Five hours later, the Labour amendment passed easily with no resistance from the government. Starmer had averted disaster and emerged stronger. “We came very close to a huge rebellion,” said one Labour source. “But in the end Starmer’s authority is stronger than it was before today.” Explore more on these topics Keir Starmer Labour House of Commons Commons speaker Gaza Israel-Gaza war analysis Share Reuse this content Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger View image in fullscreen Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger View image in fullscreen Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger View image in fullscreen Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger View image in fullscreen Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger Starmer’s authority ‘is stronger than it was before today’, one Labour source claimed. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/UK Parliament/Maria Unger This article is more than 1 year old Analysis How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis This article is more than 1 year old Kiran Stacey Political correspondent This article is more than 1 year old Analysis How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis This article is more than 1 year old Kiran Stacey Political correspondent This article is more than 1 year old Analysis How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis This article is more than 1 year old Kiran Stacey Political correspondent This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Kiran Stacey Political correspondent Kiran Stacey Political correspondent A last-minute intervention proved crucial as Starmer faced the biggest rebellion of his leadership A last-minute intervention proved crucial as Starmer faced the biggest rebellion of his leadership A last-minute intervention proved crucial as Starmer faced the biggest rebellion of his leadership On Wednesday lunchtime Keir Starmer was facing the biggest crisis of his career. Earlier in the week, he had been warned that as many as 100 of his MPs – including at least two of his shadow cabinet – were willing to rebel by voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza unless Labour brought forward its own amendment calling for one. Having agreed to publish exactly such an amendment , the Labour leader now faced another hurdle: the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was being advised not to pick it and instead call a different one from the government. Hours away from the biggest rebellion of his leadership, Starmer decided to intervene personally and visited Hoyle in his office behind the House of Commons chamber. Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Read more Those briefed on the meeting said the Labour leader warned Hoyle that Labour MPs’ security was at risk. Many had been deluged by criticisms, threats and abuse since abstaining on a similar SNP motion in November . With hundreds of protesters congregating outside parliament, they worried worse might be to come. After a tense meeting, and with Labour MPs desperately stalling inside the chamber, Hoyle eventually agreed. As the Gaza debate started, the speaker announced he would call both the Labour and government amendments, prompting fury on the government and SNP benches and huge relief on the Labour ones. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report After a dramatic day in parliament, the speaker’s standing, at least on the government’s benches, had been left badly damaged. Starmer, however, had pulled off a political coup, eventually avoiding any rebellion at all after the government decided to pull out entirely from the evening’s votes. “We came minutes away from disaster,” said one senior Labour official. “Thank God for Lindsay Hoyle.” While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more Wednesday’s parliamentary action was the culmination of weeks of wrangling on the Labour benches, as MPs petitioned the Labour leader to change tack on Gaza while his advisers warned him against stepping out of line with the perceived international consensus. The last ceasefire vote in November had triggered the biggest rebellion of Starmer’s tenure, with 56 Labour MPs defying orders to vote for the SNP motion including 10 frontbenchers. Since then, many of those MPs who stayed loyal have faced protests outside their constituency offices and even their homes. Their arguments about parliamentary process and the difference between a ceasefire and Labour’s proposal of a “humanitarian pause” proved ineffective as the death toll in Gaza mounted. Meanwhile, Starmer’s position was changing. He began to argue for an immediate end to the violence and a “ceasefire that lasts”. But as he travelled to the Munich Security Conference last week alongside his shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, he was under pressure to go further and argue explicitly for an “immediate ceasefire”. As Starmer, Lammy and Healey met international leaders and well-connected diplomats in Munich, they realised international opinion was beginning to shift. With the Israelis beginning to threaten Rafah, western countries were becoming more robust in their calls for an end to the fighting. A turning point came last Thursday, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand published a joint statement urging an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, which gave the Labour leader cover to use the same language. “Don’t underestimate how significant that was,” said one senior Labour official. “Having our Five Eyes partners call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire definitely helped shape our thinking.” But as Starmer returned to Westminster on Monday he had still not decided what form of words to propose in an alternative to the SNP motion. Frontbenchers, led by the shadow justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, were dispatched to warn him that anything less than a call for an immediate ceasefire would trigger a massive rebellion. “Many MPs who remained loyal to him last time told him they couldn’t do so again unless they were allowed to vote for an immediate ceasefire,” said one Labour source. “The situation on the ground has only got worse since then, as has the pressure on ordinary members.” Starmer was persuaded, and on Tuesday afternoon his whips published their amendment which called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” before laying out exactly in what circumstances one could be expected to happen. The trouble was not yet over for the Labour leader, however. During a meeting in parliament, Starmer and Lammy took shadow ministers through their reasoning. But elsewhere on the estate, shadow foreign minister Wayne David endured a much tougher time as he explained the new position to backbenchers. Several MPs, including Jess Phillips, who resigned in November as a shadow minister to vote with the SNP, and the backbenchers Sam Tarry and Paul Blomfield, criticised the leadership. Some were angry that the new amendment had too many caveats. Many others were furious about how long it had taken to get the party to take the position it was now taking, and how many had seen their careers damaged in the meantime. “The frontbench took an absolute battering,” said one person who attended the meeting. Starmer had an even bigger problem. Labour officials predicted correctly that the government would publish its own amendment to the SNP motion, which under parliamentary precedent would trump the Labour one. If Labour MPs were not able to vote for their own amendment calling for an “immediate ceasefire”, dozens were still willing to vote for the SNP motion. Labour MPs launched a frantic lobbying campaign aimed at the speaker. Unless Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment to come to a vote, they said, he would be forcing them to remain loyal to their party or put their own safety at risk. Several told him of the threats they had faced since abstaining on the SNP motion last time. The party denied reports that Labour whips had even threatened to lead an effort to deselect him as speaker if he did not call the Labour amendment. Starmer’s last-minute intervention proved crucial. Finally, Hoyle entered the chamber and announced his decision to abandon precedent and call both the Labour and the government amendments. The Tory and SNP benches erupted in anger, while shadow ministers slumped in relief. 2:46 MPs jeer as speaker chooses Labour amendment on Gaza ceasefire motion – video The debate eventually began around an hour after it was expected. Five hours later, the Labour amendment passed easily with no resistance from the government. Starmer had averted disaster and emerged stronger. “We came very close to a huge rebellion,” said one Labour source. “But in the end Starmer’s authority is stronger than it was before today.” Explore more on these topics Keir Starmer Labour House of Commons Commons speaker Gaza Israel-Gaza war analysis Share Reuse this content On Wednesday lunchtime Keir Starmer was facing the biggest crisis of his career. Earlier in the week, he had been warned that as many as 100 of his MPs – including at least two of his shadow cabinet – were willing to rebel by voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza unless Labour brought forward its own amendment calling for one. Having agreed to publish exactly such an amendment , the Labour leader now faced another hurdle: the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was being advised not to pick it and instead call a different one from the government. Hours away from the biggest rebellion of his leadership, Starmer decided to intervene personally and visited Hoyle in his office behind the House of Commons chamber. Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Read more Those briefed on the meeting said the Labour leader warned Hoyle that Labour MPs’ security was at risk. Many had been deluged by criticisms, threats and abuse since abstaining on a similar SNP motion in November . With hundreds of protesters congregating outside parliament, they worried worse might be to come. After a tense meeting, and with Labour MPs desperately stalling inside the chamber, Hoyle eventually agreed. As the Gaza debate started, the speaker announced he would call both the Labour and government amendments, prompting fury on the government and SNP benches and huge relief on the Labour ones. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report After a dramatic day in parliament, the speaker’s standing, at least on the government’s benches, had been left badly damaged. Starmer, however, had pulled off a political coup, eventually avoiding any rebellion at all after the government decided to pull out entirely from the evening’s votes. “We came minutes away from disaster,” said one senior Labour official. “Thank God for Lindsay Hoyle.” While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more Wednesday’s parliamentary action was the culmination of weeks of wrangling on the Labour benches, as MPs petitioned the Labour leader to change tack on Gaza while his advisers warned him against stepping out of line with the perceived international consensus. The last ceasefire vote in November had triggered the biggest rebellion of Starmer’s tenure, with 56 Labour MPs defying orders to vote for the SNP motion including 10 frontbenchers. Since then, many of those MPs who stayed loyal have faced protests outside their constituency offices and even their homes. Their arguments about parliamentary process and the difference between a ceasefire and Labour’s proposal of a “humanitarian pause” proved ineffective as the death toll in Gaza mounted. Meanwhile, Starmer’s position was changing. He began to argue for an immediate end to the violence and a “ceasefire that lasts”. But as he travelled to the Munich Security Conference last week alongside his shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, he was under pressure to go further and argue explicitly for an “immediate ceasefire”. As Starmer, Lammy and Healey met international leaders and well-connected diplomats in Munich, they realised international opinion was beginning to shift. With the Israelis beginning to threaten Rafah, western countries were becoming more robust in their calls for an end to the fighting. A turning point came last Thursday, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand published a joint statement urging an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, which gave the Labour leader cover to use the same language. “Don’t underestimate how significant that was,” said one senior Labour official. “Having our Five Eyes partners call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire definitely helped shape our thinking.” But as Starmer returned to Westminster on Monday he had still not decided what form of words to propose in an alternative to the SNP motion. Frontbenchers, led by the shadow justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, were dispatched to warn him that anything less than a call for an immediate ceasefire would trigger a massive rebellion. “Many MPs who remained loyal to him last time told him they couldn’t do so again unless they were allowed to vote for an immediate ceasefire,” said one Labour source. “The situation on the ground has only got worse since then, as has the pressure on ordinary members.” Starmer was persuaded, and on Tuesday afternoon his whips published their amendment which called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” before laying out exactly in what circumstances one could be expected to happen. The trouble was not yet over for the Labour leader, however. During a meeting in parliament, Starmer and Lammy took shadow ministers through their reasoning. But elsewhere on the estate, shadow foreign minister Wayne David endured a much tougher time as he explained the new position to backbenchers. Several MPs, including Jess Phillips, who resigned in November as a shadow minister to vote with the SNP, and the backbenchers Sam Tarry and Paul Blomfield, criticised the leadership. Some were angry that the new amendment had too many caveats. Many others were furious about how long it had taken to get the party to take the position it was now taking, and how many had seen their careers damaged in the meantime. “The frontbench took an absolute battering,” said one person who attended the meeting. Starmer had an even bigger problem. Labour officials predicted correctly that the government would publish its own amendment to the SNP motion, which under parliamentary precedent would trump the Labour one. If Labour MPs were not able to vote for their own amendment calling for an “immediate ceasefire”, dozens were still willing to vote for the SNP motion. Labour MPs launched a frantic lobbying campaign aimed at the speaker. Unless Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment to come to a vote, they said, he would be forcing them to remain loyal to their party or put their own safety at risk. Several told him of the threats they had faced since abstaining on the SNP motion last time. The party denied reports that Labour whips had even threatened to lead an effort to deselect him as speaker if he did not call the Labour amendment. Starmer’s last-minute intervention proved crucial. Finally, Hoyle entered the chamber and announced his decision to abandon precedent and call both the Labour and the government amendments. The Tory and SNP benches erupted in anger, while shadow ministers slumped in relief. 2:46 MPs jeer as speaker chooses Labour amendment on Gaza ceasefire motion – video The debate eventually began around an hour after it was expected. Five hours later, the Labour amendment passed easily with no resistance from the government. Starmer had averted disaster and emerged stronger. “We came very close to a huge rebellion,” said one Labour source. “But in the end Starmer’s authority is stronger than it was before today.” Explore more on these topics Keir Starmer Labour House of Commons Commons speaker Gaza Israel-Gaza war analysis Share Reuse this content On Wednesday lunchtime Keir Starmer was facing the biggest crisis of his career. Earlier in the week, he had been warned that as many as 100 of his MPs – including at least two of his shadow cabinet – were willing to rebel by voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza unless Labour brought forward its own amendment calling for one. Having agreed to publish exactly such an amendment , the Labour leader now faced another hurdle: the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was being advised not to pick it and instead call a different one from the government. Hours away from the biggest rebellion of his leadership, Starmer decided to intervene personally and visited Hoyle in his office behind the House of Commons chamber. Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Read more Those briefed on the meeting said the Labour leader warned Hoyle that Labour MPs’ security was at risk. Many had been deluged by criticisms, threats and abuse since abstaining on a similar SNP motion in November . With hundreds of protesters congregating outside parliament, they worried worse might be to come. After a tense meeting, and with Labour MPs desperately stalling inside the chamber, Hoyle eventually agreed. As the Gaza debate started, the speaker announced he would call both the Labour and government amendments, prompting fury on the government and SNP benches and huge relief on the Labour ones. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report After a dramatic day in parliament, the speaker’s standing, at least on the government’s benches, had been left badly damaged. Starmer, however, had pulled off a political coup, eventually avoiding any rebellion at all after the government decided to pull out entirely from the evening’s votes. “We came minutes away from disaster,” said one senior Labour official. “Thank God for Lindsay Hoyle.” While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more Wednesday’s parliamentary action was the culmination of weeks of wrangling on the Labour benches, as MPs petitioned the Labour leader to change tack on Gaza while his advisers warned him against stepping out of line with the perceived international consensus. The last ceasefire vote in November had triggered the biggest rebellion of Starmer’s tenure, with 56 Labour MPs defying orders to vote for the SNP motion including 10 frontbenchers. Since then, many of those MPs who stayed loyal have faced protests outside their constituency offices and even their homes. Their arguments about parliamentary process and the difference between a ceasefire and Labour’s proposal of a “humanitarian pause” proved ineffective as the death toll in Gaza mounted. Meanwhile, Starmer’s position was changing. He began to argue for an immediate end to the violence and a “ceasefire that lasts”. But as he travelled to the Munich Security Conference last week alongside his shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, he was under pressure to go further and argue explicitly for an “immediate ceasefire”. As Starmer, Lammy and Healey met international leaders and well-connected diplomats in Munich, they realised international opinion was beginning to shift. With the Israelis beginning to threaten Rafah, western countries were becoming more robust in their calls for an end to the fighting. A turning point came last Thursday, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand published a joint statement urging an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, which gave the Labour leader cover to use the same language. “Don’t underestimate how significant that was,” said one senior Labour official. “Having our Five Eyes partners call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire definitely helped shape our thinking.” But as Starmer returned to Westminster on Monday he had still not decided what form of words to propose in an alternative to the SNP motion. Frontbenchers, led by the shadow justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, were dispatched to warn him that anything less than a call for an immediate ceasefire would trigger a massive rebellion. “Many MPs who remained loyal to him last time told him they couldn’t do so again unless they were allowed to vote for an immediate ceasefire,” said one Labour source. “The situation on the ground has only got worse since then, as has the pressure on ordinary members.” Starmer was persuaded, and on Tuesday afternoon his whips published their amendment which called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” before laying out exactly in what circumstances one could be expected to happen. The trouble was not yet over for the Labour leader, however. During a meeting in parliament, Starmer and Lammy took shadow ministers through their reasoning. But elsewhere on the estate, shadow foreign minister Wayne David endured a much tougher time as he explained the new position to backbenchers. Several MPs, including Jess Phillips, who resigned in November as a shadow minister to vote with the SNP, and the backbenchers Sam Tarry and Paul Blomfield, criticised the leadership. Some were angry that the new amendment had too many caveats. Many others were furious about how long it had taken to get the party to take the position it was now taking, and how many had seen their careers damaged in the meantime. “The frontbench took an absolute battering,” said one person who attended the meeting. Starmer had an even bigger problem. Labour officials predicted correctly that the government would publish its own amendment to the SNP motion, which under parliamentary precedent would trump the Labour one. If Labour MPs were not able to vote for their own amendment calling for an “immediate ceasefire”, dozens were still willing to vote for the SNP motion. Labour MPs launched a frantic lobbying campaign aimed at the speaker. Unless Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment to come to a vote, they said, he would be forcing them to remain loyal to their party or put their own safety at risk. Several told him of the threats they had faced since abstaining on the SNP motion last time. The party denied reports that Labour whips had even threatened to lead an effort to deselect him as speaker if he did not call the Labour amendment. Starmer’s last-minute intervention proved crucial. Finally, Hoyle entered the chamber and announced his decision to abandon precedent and call both the Labour and the government amendments. The Tory and SNP benches erupted in anger, while shadow ministers slumped in relief. 2:46 MPs jeer as speaker chooses Labour amendment on Gaza ceasefire motion – video The debate eventually began around an hour after it was expected. Five hours later, the Labour amendment passed easily with no resistance from the government. Starmer had averted disaster and emerged stronger. “We came very close to a huge rebellion,” said one Labour source. “But in the end Starmer’s authority is stronger than it was before today.” On Wednesday lunchtime Keir Starmer was facing the biggest crisis of his career. Earlier in the week, he had been warned that as many as 100 of his MPs – including at least two of his shadow cabinet – were willing to rebel by voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza unless Labour brought forward its own amendment calling for one. Having agreed to publish exactly such an amendment , the Labour leader now faced another hurdle: the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was being advised not to pick it and instead call a different one from the government. Hours away from the biggest rebellion of his leadership, Starmer decided to intervene personally and visited Hoyle in his office behind the House of Commons chamber. Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Read more Those briefed on the meeting said the Labour leader warned Hoyle that Labour MPs’ security was at risk. Many had been deluged by criticisms, threats and abuse since abstaining on a similar SNP motion in November . With hundreds of protesters congregating outside parliament, they worried worse might be to come. After a tense meeting, and with Labour MPs desperately stalling inside the chamber, Hoyle eventually agreed. As the Gaza debate started, the speaker announced he would call both the Labour and government amendments, prompting fury on the government and SNP benches and huge relief on the Labour ones. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report After a dramatic day in parliament, the speaker’s standing, at least on the government’s benches, had been left badly damaged. Starmer, however, had pulled off a political coup, eventually avoiding any rebellion at all after the government decided to pull out entirely from the evening’s votes. “We came minutes away from disaster,” said one senior Labour official. “Thank God for Lindsay Hoyle.” While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more Wednesday’s parliamentary action was the culmination of weeks of wrangling on the Labour benches, as MPs petitioned the Labour leader to change tack on Gaza while his advisers warned him against stepping out of line with the perceived international consensus. The last ceasefire vote in November had triggered the biggest rebellion of Starmer’s tenure, with 56 Labour MPs defying orders to vote for the SNP motion including 10 frontbenchers. Since then, many of those MPs who stayed loyal have faced protests outside their constituency offices and even their homes. Their arguments about parliamentary process and the difference between a ceasefire and Labour’s proposal of a “humanitarian pause” proved ineffective as the death toll in Gaza mounted. Meanwhile, Starmer’s position was changing. He began to argue for an immediate end to the violence and a “ceasefire that lasts”. But as he travelled to the Munich Security Conference last week alongside his shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, and the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, he was under pressure to go further and argue explicitly for an “immediate ceasefire”. As Starmer, Lammy and Healey met international leaders and well-connected diplomats in Munich, they realised international opinion was beginning to shift. With the Israelis beginning to threaten Rafah, western countries were becoming more robust in their calls for an end to the fighting. A turning point came last Thursday, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand published a joint statement urging an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, which gave the Labour leader cover to use the same language. “Don’t underestimate how significant that was,” said one senior Labour official. “Having our Five Eyes partners call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire definitely helped shape our thinking.” But as Starmer returned to Westminster on Monday he had still not decided what form of words to propose in an alternative to the SNP motion. Frontbenchers, led by the shadow justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, were dispatched to warn him that anything less than a call for an immediate ceasefire would trigger a massive rebellion. “Many MPs who remained loyal to him last time told him they couldn’t do so again unless they were allowed to vote for an immediate ceasefire,” said one Labour source. “The situation on the ground has only got worse since then, as has the pressure on ordinary members.” Starmer was persuaded, and on Tuesday afternoon his whips published their amendment which called for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” before laying out exactly in what circumstances one could be expected to happen. The trouble was not yet over for the Labour leader, however. During a meeting in parliament, Starmer and Lammy took shadow ministers through their reasoning. But elsewhere on the estate, shadow foreign minister Wayne David endured a much tougher time as he explained the new position to backbenchers. Several MPs, including Jess Phillips, who resigned in November as a shadow minister to vote with the SNP, and the backbenchers Sam Tarry and Paul Blomfield, criticised the leadership. Some were angry that the new amendment had too many caveats. Many others were furious about how long it had taken to get the party to take the position it was now taking, and how many had seen their careers damaged in the meantime. “The frontbench took an absolute battering,” said one person who attended the meeting. Starmer had an even bigger problem. Labour officials predicted correctly that the government would publish its own amendment to the SNP motion, which under parliamentary precedent would trump the Labour one. If Labour MPs were not able to vote for their own amendment calling for an “immediate ceasefire”, dozens were still willing to vote for the SNP motion. Labour MPs launched a frantic lobbying campaign aimed at the speaker. Unless Hoyle allowed the Labour amendment to come to a vote, they said, he would be forcing them to remain loyal to their party or put their own safety at risk. Several told him of the threats they had faced since abstaining on the SNP motion last time. The party denied reports that Labour whips had even threatened to lead an effort to deselect him as speaker if he did not call the Labour amendment. Starmer’s last-minute intervention proved crucial. Finally, Hoyle entered the chamber and announced his decision to abandon precedent and call both the Labour and the government amendments. The Tory and SNP benches erupted in anger, while shadow ministers slumped in relief. 2:46 MPs jeer as speaker chooses Labour amendment on Gaza ceasefire motion – video The debate eventually began around an hour after it was expected. Five hours later, the Labour amendment passed easily with no resistance from the government. Starmer had averted disaster and emerged stronger. “We came very close to a huge rebellion,” said one Labour source. “But in the end Starmer’s authority is stronger than it was before today.” On Wednesday lunchtime Keir Starmer was facing the biggest crisis of his career. Earlier in the week, he had been warned that as many as 100 of his MPs – including at least two of his shadow cabinet – were willing to rebel by voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza unless Labour brought forward its own amendment calling for one. Having agreed to publish exactly such an amendment , the Labour leader now faced another hurdle: the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was being advised not to pick it and instead call a different one from the government. Hours away from the biggest rebellion of his leadership, Starmer decided to intervene personally and visited Hoyle in his office behind the House of Commons chamber. Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Read more Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Read more Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Read more Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Sir Lindsay Hoyle vowed to restore calm but now faces ‘toxic parliament’ Those briefed on the meeting said the Labour leader warned Hoyle that Labour MPs’ security was at risk. Many had been deluged by criticisms, threats and abuse since abstaining on a similar SNP motion in November . With hundreds of protesters congregating outside parliament, they worried worse might be to come. After a tense meeting, and with Labour MPs desperately stalling inside the chamber, Hoyle eventually agreed. As the Gaza debate started, the speaker announced he would call both the Labour and government amendments, prompting fury on the government and SNP benches and huge relief on the Labour ones. 3:34 UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report After a dramatic day in parliament, the speaker’s standing, at least on the government’s benches, had been left badly damaged. Starmer, however, had pulled off a political coup, eventually avoiding any rebellion at all after the government decided to pull out entirely from the evening’s votes. “We came minutes away from disaster,” said one senior Labour official. “Thank God for Lindsay Hoyle.” While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Read more While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire | John Crace Wednesday’s parliamentary action was the culmination of weeks of wrangling on the Labour benches, as MPs petitioned the Labour leader to change tack on Gaza while his advisers warned him against stepping out of line with the perceived internat
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Enoch Mailangi: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet)
‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi View image in fullscreen ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi This article is more than 1 year old Enoch Mailangi: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) This article is more than 1 year old The internet is a ‘godless institution’ for the screenwriter and enfant terrible – who proves it via serial killers, sex toy scandals, and an ode to Saoirse Ronan Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email T he internet is a place where narcotics enthusiasts and cheaters flourish. It has become a completely godless institution with nothing but narcissistic bad faith actors at the helm. The honest come here to lie, and liars come here to be honest. We must go off-grid and destroy what has become man’s fifth limb for I worry about the children becoming psychologically brittle. They worship Skibidi Toilet and Ms. Rachel and last I checked idolatry is an unforgivable sin. Actually I don’t care. And I’ve also just changed my mind. Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) Read more See, you can do that on the internet. You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful. And the thing about the lived experience is … you can totally make it up – how beautiful. Today? I’m Irish and Italian. I DJ. And I’m an absolute vibe terrorist. Tomorrow? A farmer with a missing child. A loving father secretly on Ozempic. A revolutionary. Yesterday? Broken. Lost. Hyena in the club girl . A bunny rabbit. So bring your beautiful beluga blue eyes here, hold my hand and come walk with me. 1. Who is going to clean your toilets? You know when you’re at kick-ons and you say something that you think is genius but everyone goes completely quiet, break-out rooms form, and you’re suddenly chain-smoking a full packet of Double Happiness and considering sobriety in a really big way? That is how this video feels. It captures the experience of saying something completely off chops and immediately being victim to the response. I’ve titled this the Monday monologues after a weekend of ups and downs and waking up to several essay messages about ways in which you’ve behaved. Homework for my therapist. 2. Ed Hardy fashion show, Sydney 2009 We used to ride horseback before Uber came and ruined that. And Sydney used to be a place where risk was taken and kings were crowned. Now all we know is nude beaches and the new airport next to the Art Gallery of New South Wales; oh how empires crumble. At 5:30, a group of models dance to Sidney Samson’s Riverside. Black Jesus Amen Fashion ! 3. Nicki Minaj puts the Barbz in time out Nicki Minaj doesn’t believe in prisons, just time out. She’s abolitionist like that. And with the release of Pink Friday 2 it’s important to remember that we Barbz need to be checked every now and again. In this hilarious camera-blocked Instagram Live, Nicki puts her fans in time out after they made her trend on Twitter, demanding an update to her breakout hit Super Bass. She also shuts down allegations that she’s 5ft 2in, when she is in fact 5ft 3in. 4. The Twin Towers – Seinfield Spec Script Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? Read more When 9/11 happened my grandmother sat me down and told me that the third world war was beginning … and then took me to kindy and told me to have the best day ever. As a TV writer I gotta do a shoutout to my favourite spec script and page turner of all time. 5. Saoirse Ronan by RXKNephew This certified banger is perfect for the car, especially when your licence is suspended. I personally believe licences should be suggestions but this is why I don’t run society. It’s a paranoid brain dump and an ode to Saoirse Ronan, one of the top 100 Irish people of all time. 6. It’s not about the pasta! Vanderpump Rules cast members Lala Kent and James Kennedy have a heated exchange over lunch that bleeds into the street. It’s about pasta, though rumours among fans say that “pasta” is a potential industry codeword for *sniff* something else – which other cast members have strenuously denied. Honestly, if you are not fighting your besties like this in the streets, then what’s the point? 7. Crackhead Barney & Friends Crackhead Barney is a lot of things. A comedian. An artist. An interviewer. She once said : “You know my parents told me you could be whatever you want. And then when I started this show they were like, that’s not what we meant.” I fell in love with Crackhead Barney during her coverage of a Maga protest leading up to the January 6 insurrection. You could say Congress hasn’t been the same since then – look at what they did to George Santos. Another diva down. Crackhead Barney is a self-described “black demonic spirit” and she keeps me going when the world feels so bleak. 8. David’s dead When Angie Bowie’s ex-husband David Bowie dies while she’s in the Celebrity Big Brother house, a historic miscommunication occurs. When the news is shared with fellow contestant Tiffany “New York” Pollard she immediately confuses the news with another housemate, David Gest, who was very unwell in the house and sadly passed away two months after his eviction. The Big Brother house is sent into a spiral. Perfect television. 9. Wendy Williams’ theory of the killer The idea that the world is full of killers is systematically true. There are people waiting in the sidelines waiting to take you as their next victim. Check every door. And check it twice! 10. DildoGate I’ll leave you with this one. Have a blessed day everyone. Enoch Mailangi is an award-winning screenwriter and troublemaker based in Sydney. They have written on Stan’s Year Of and Invisible Boys, SBS’s While The Men Are Away, and ABC’s Crazy Fun Park. Follow them on Instagram Explore more on these topics Culture The funniest things on the internet Internet TikTok YouTube Seinfeld Big Brother Nicki Minaj features Share Reuse this content ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi View image in fullscreen ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi This article is more than 1 year old Enoch Mailangi: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) This article is more than 1 year old The internet is a ‘godless institution’ for the screenwriter and enfant terrible – who proves it via serial killers, sex toy scandals, and an ode to Saoirse Ronan Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email T he internet is a place where narcotics enthusiasts and cheaters flourish. It has become a completely godless institution with nothing but narcissistic bad faith actors at the helm. The honest come here to lie, and liars come here to be honest. We must go off-grid and destroy what has become man’s fifth limb for I worry about the children becoming psychologically brittle. They worship Skibidi Toilet and Ms. Rachel and last I checked idolatry is an unforgivable sin. Actually I don’t care. And I’ve also just changed my mind. Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) Read more See, you can do that on the internet. You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful. And the thing about the lived experience is … you can totally make it up – how beautiful. Today? I’m Irish and Italian. I DJ. And I’m an absolute vibe terrorist. Tomorrow? A farmer with a missing child. A loving father secretly on Ozempic. A revolutionary. Yesterday? Broken. Lost. Hyena in the club girl . A bunny rabbit. So bring your beautiful beluga blue eyes here, hold my hand and come walk with me. 1. Who is going to clean your toilets? You know when you’re at kick-ons and you say something that you think is genius but everyone goes completely quiet, break-out rooms form, and you’re suddenly chain-smoking a full packet of Double Happiness and considering sobriety in a really big way? That is how this video feels. It captures the experience of saying something completely off chops and immediately being victim to the response. I’ve titled this the Monday monologues after a weekend of ups and downs and waking up to several essay messages about ways in which you’ve behaved. Homework for my therapist. 2. Ed Hardy fashion show, Sydney 2009 We used to ride horseback before Uber came and ruined that. And Sydney used to be a place where risk was taken and kings were crowned. Now all we know is nude beaches and the new airport next to the Art Gallery of New South Wales; oh how empires crumble. At 5:30, a group of models dance to Sidney Samson’s Riverside. Black Jesus Amen Fashion ! 3. Nicki Minaj puts the Barbz in time out Nicki Minaj doesn’t believe in prisons, just time out. She’s abolitionist like that. And with the release of Pink Friday 2 it’s important to remember that we Barbz need to be checked every now and again. In this hilarious camera-blocked Instagram Live, Nicki puts her fans in time out after they made her trend on Twitter, demanding an update to her breakout hit Super Bass. She also shuts down allegations that she’s 5ft 2in, when she is in fact 5ft 3in. 4. The Twin Towers – Seinfield Spec Script Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? Read more When 9/11 happened my grandmother sat me down and told me that the third world war was beginning … and then took me to kindy and told me to have the best day ever. As a TV writer I gotta do a shoutout to my favourite spec script and page turner of all time. 5. Saoirse Ronan by RXKNephew This certified banger is perfect for the car, especially when your licence is suspended. I personally believe licences should be suggestions but this is why I don’t run society. It’s a paranoid brain dump and an ode to Saoirse Ronan, one of the top 100 Irish people of all time. 6. It’s not about the pasta! Vanderpump Rules cast members Lala Kent and James Kennedy have a heated exchange over lunch that bleeds into the street. It’s about pasta, though rumours among fans say that “pasta” is a potential industry codeword for *sniff* something else – which other cast members have strenuously denied. Honestly, if you are not fighting your besties like this in the streets, then what’s the point? 7. Crackhead Barney & Friends Crackhead Barney is a lot of things. A comedian. An artist. An interviewer. She once said : “You know my parents told me you could be whatever you want. And then when I started this show they were like, that’s not what we meant.” I fell in love with Crackhead Barney during her coverage of a Maga protest leading up to the January 6 insurrection. You could say Congress hasn’t been the same since then – look at what they did to George Santos. Another diva down. Crackhead Barney is a self-described “black demonic spirit” and she keeps me going when the world feels so bleak. 8. David’s dead When Angie Bowie’s ex-husband David Bowie dies while she’s in the Celebrity Big Brother house, a historic miscommunication occurs. When the news is shared with fellow contestant Tiffany “New York” Pollard she immediately confuses the news with another housemate, David Gest, who was very unwell in the house and sadly passed away two months after his eviction. The Big Brother house is sent into a spiral. Perfect television. 9. Wendy Williams’ theory of the killer The idea that the world is full of killers is systematically true. There are people waiting in the sidelines waiting to take you as their next victim. Check every door. And check it twice! 10. DildoGate I’ll leave you with this one. Have a blessed day everyone. Enoch Mailangi is an award-winning screenwriter and troublemaker based in Sydney. They have written on Stan’s Year Of and Invisible Boys, SBS’s While The Men Are Away, and ABC’s Crazy Fun Park. Follow them on Instagram Explore more on these topics Culture The funniest things on the internet Internet TikTok YouTube Seinfeld Big Brother Nicki Minaj features Share Reuse this content ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi View image in fullscreen ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi View image in fullscreen ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi View image in fullscreen ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi View image in fullscreen ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi ‘You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful’: Enoch Mailangi This article is more than 1 year old Enoch Mailangi: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Enoch Mailangi: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Enoch Mailangi: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The internet is a ‘godless institution’ for the screenwriter and enfant terrible – who proves it via serial killers, sex toy scandals, and an ode to Saoirse Ronan Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email The internet is a ‘godless institution’ for the screenwriter and enfant terrible – who proves it via serial killers, sex toy scandals, and an ode to Saoirse Ronan Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email The internet is a ‘godless institution’ for the screenwriter and enfant terrible – who proves it via serial killers, sex toy scandals, and an ode to Saoirse Ronan T he internet is a place where narcotics enthusiasts and cheaters flourish. It has become a completely godless institution with nothing but narcissistic bad faith actors at the helm. The honest come here to lie, and liars come here to be honest. We must go off-grid and destroy what has become man’s fifth limb for I worry about the children becoming psychologically brittle. They worship Skibidi Toilet and Ms. Rachel and last I checked idolatry is an unforgivable sin. Actually I don’t care. And I’ve also just changed my mind. Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) Read more See, you can do that on the internet. You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful. And the thing about the lived experience is … you can totally make it up – how beautiful. Today? I’m Irish and Italian. I DJ. And I’m an absolute vibe terrorist. Tomorrow? A farmer with a missing child. A loving father secretly on Ozempic. A revolutionary. Yesterday? Broken. Lost. Hyena in the club girl . A bunny rabbit. So bring your beautiful beluga blue eyes here, hold my hand and come walk with me. 1. Who is going to clean your toilets? You know when you’re at kick-ons and you say something that you think is genius but everyone goes completely quiet, break-out rooms form, and you’re suddenly chain-smoking a full packet of Double Happiness and considering sobriety in a really big way? That is how this video feels. It captures the experience of saying something completely off chops and immediately being victim to the response. I’ve titled this the Monday monologues after a weekend of ups and downs and waking up to several essay messages about ways in which you’ve behaved. Homework for my therapist. 2. Ed Hardy fashion show, Sydney 2009 We used to ride horseback before Uber came and ruined that. And Sydney used to be a place where risk was taken and kings were crowned. Now all we know is nude beaches and the new airport next to the Art Gallery of New South Wales; oh how empires crumble. At 5:30, a group of models dance to Sidney Samson’s Riverside. Black Jesus Amen Fashion ! 3. Nicki Minaj puts the Barbz in time out Nicki Minaj doesn’t believe in prisons, just time out. She’s abolitionist like that. And with the release of Pink Friday 2 it’s important to remember that we Barbz need to be checked every now and again. In this hilarious camera-blocked Instagram Live, Nicki puts her fans in time out after they made her trend on Twitter, demanding an update to her breakout hit Super Bass. She also shuts down allegations that she’s 5ft 2in, when she is in fact 5ft 3in. 4. The Twin Towers – Seinfield Spec Script Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? Read more When 9/11 happened my grandmother sat me down and told me that the third world war was beginning … and then took me to kindy and told me to have the best day ever. As a TV writer I gotta do a shoutout to my favourite spec script and page turner of all time. 5. Saoirse Ronan by RXKNephew This certified banger is perfect for the car, especially when your licence is suspended. I personally believe licences should be suggestions but this is why I don’t run society. It’s a paranoid brain dump and an ode to Saoirse Ronan, one of the top 100 Irish people of all time. 6. It’s not about the pasta! Vanderpump Rules cast members Lala Kent and James Kennedy have a heated exchange over lunch that bleeds into the street. It’s about pasta, though rumours among fans say that “pasta” is a potential industry codeword for *sniff* something else – which other cast members have strenuously denied. Honestly, if you are not fighting your besties like this in the streets, then what’s the point? 7. Crackhead Barney & Friends Crackhead Barney is a lot of things. A comedian. An artist. An interviewer. She once said : “You know my parents told me you could be whatever you want. And then when I started this show they were like, that’s not what we meant.” I fell in love with Crackhead Barney during her coverage of a Maga protest leading up to the January 6 insurrection. You could say Congress hasn’t been the same since then – look at what they did to George Santos. Another diva down. Crackhead Barney is a self-described “black demonic spirit” and she keeps me going when the world feels so bleak. 8. David’s dead When Angie Bowie’s ex-husband David Bowie dies while she’s in the Celebrity Big Brother house, a historic miscommunication occurs. When the news is shared with fellow contestant Tiffany “New York” Pollard she immediately confuses the news with another housemate, David Gest, who was very unwell in the house and sadly passed away two months after his eviction. The Big Brother house is sent into a spiral. Perfect television. 9. Wendy Williams’ theory of the killer The idea that the world is full of killers is systematically true. There are people waiting in the sidelines waiting to take you as their next victim. Check every door. And check it twice! 10. DildoGate I’ll leave you with this one. Have a blessed day everyone. Enoch Mailangi is an award-winning screenwriter and troublemaker based in Sydney. They have written on Stan’s Year Of and Invisible Boys, SBS’s While The Men Are Away, and ABC’s Crazy Fun Park. Follow them on Instagram Explore more on these topics Culture The funniest things on the internet Internet TikTok YouTube Seinfeld Big Brother Nicki Minaj features Share Reuse this content T he internet is a place where narcotics enthusiasts and cheaters flourish. It has become a completely godless institution with nothing but narcissistic bad faith actors at the helm. The honest come here to lie, and liars come here to be honest. We must go off-grid and destroy what has become man’s fifth limb for I worry about the children becoming psychologically brittle. They worship Skibidi Toilet and Ms. Rachel and last I checked idolatry is an unforgivable sin. Actually I don’t care. And I’ve also just changed my mind. Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) Read more See, you can do that on the internet. You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful. And the thing about the lived experience is … you can totally make it up – how beautiful. Today? I’m Irish and Italian. I DJ. And I’m an absolute vibe terrorist. Tomorrow? A farmer with a missing child. A loving father secretly on Ozempic. A revolutionary. Yesterday? Broken. Lost. Hyena in the club girl . A bunny rabbit. So bring your beautiful beluga blue eyes here, hold my hand and come walk with me. 1. Who is going to clean your toilets? You know when you’re at kick-ons and you say something that you think is genius but everyone goes completely quiet, break-out rooms form, and you’re suddenly chain-smoking a full packet of Double Happiness and considering sobriety in a really big way? That is how this video feels. It captures the experience of saying something completely off chops and immediately being victim to the response. I’ve titled this the Monday monologues after a weekend of ups and downs and waking up to several essay messages about ways in which you’ve behaved. Homework for my therapist. 2. Ed Hardy fashion show, Sydney 2009 We used to ride horseback before Uber came and ruined that. And Sydney used to be a place where risk was taken and kings were crowned. Now all we know is nude beaches and the new airport next to the Art Gallery of New South Wales; oh how empires crumble. At 5:30, a group of models dance to Sidney Samson’s Riverside. Black Jesus Amen Fashion ! 3. Nicki Minaj puts the Barbz in time out Nicki Minaj doesn’t believe in prisons, just time out. She’s abolitionist like that. And with the release of Pink Friday 2 it’s important to remember that we Barbz need to be checked every now and again. In this hilarious camera-blocked Instagram Live, Nicki puts her fans in time out after they made her trend on Twitter, demanding an update to her breakout hit Super Bass. She also shuts down allegations that she’s 5ft 2in, when she is in fact 5ft 3in. 4. The Twin Towers – Seinfield Spec Script Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? Read more When 9/11 happened my grandmother sat me down and told me that the third world war was beginning … and then took me to kindy and told me to have the best day ever. As a TV writer I gotta do a shoutout to my favourite spec script and page turner of all time. 5. Saoirse Ronan by RXKNephew This certified banger is perfect for the car, especially when your licence is suspended. I personally believe licences should be suggestions but this is why I don’t run society. It’s a paranoid brain dump and an ode to Saoirse Ronan, one of the top 100 Irish people of all time. 6. It’s not about the pasta! Vanderpump Rules cast members Lala Kent and James Kennedy have a heated exchange over lunch that bleeds into the street. It’s about pasta, though rumours among fans say that “pasta” is a potential industry codeword for *sniff* something else – which other cast members have strenuously denied. Honestly, if you are not fighting your besties like this in the streets, then what’s the point? 7. Crackhead Barney & Friends Crackhead Barney is a lot of things. A comedian. An artist. An interviewer. She once said : “You know my parents told me you could be whatever you want. And then when I started this show they were like, that’s not what we meant.” I fell in love with Crackhead Barney during her coverage of a Maga protest leading up to the January 6 insurrection. You could say Congress hasn’t been the same since then – look at what they did to George Santos. Another diva down. Crackhead Barney is a self-described “black demonic spirit” and she keeps me going when the world feels so bleak. 8. David’s dead When Angie Bowie’s ex-husband David Bowie dies while she’s in the Celebrity Big Brother house, a historic miscommunication occurs. When the news is shared with fellow contestant Tiffany “New York” Pollard she immediately confuses the news with another housemate, David Gest, who was very unwell in the house and sadly passed away two months after his eviction. The Big Brother house is sent into a spiral. Perfect television. 9. Wendy Williams’ theory of the killer The idea that the world is full of killers is systematically true. There are people waiting in the sidelines waiting to take you as their next victim. Check every door. And check it twice! 10. DildoGate I’ll leave you with this one. Have a blessed day everyone. Enoch Mailangi is an award-winning screenwriter and troublemaker based in Sydney. They have written on Stan’s Year Of and Invisible Boys, SBS’s While The Men Are Away, and ABC’s Crazy Fun Park. Follow them on Instagram Explore more on these topics Culture The funniest things on the internet Internet TikTok YouTube Seinfeld Big Brother Nicki Minaj features Share Reuse this content T he internet is a place where narcotics enthusiasts and cheaters flourish. It has become a completely godless institution with nothing but narcissistic bad faith actors at the helm. The honest come here to lie, and liars come here to be honest. We must go off-grid and destroy what has become man’s fifth limb for I worry about the children becoming psychologically brittle. They worship Skibidi Toilet and Ms. Rachel and last I checked idolatry is an unforgivable sin. Actually I don’t care. And I’ve also just changed my mind. Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) Read more See, you can do that on the internet. You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful. And the thing about the lived experience is … you can totally make it up – how beautiful. Today? I’m Irish and Italian. I DJ. And I’m an absolute vibe terrorist. Tomorrow? A farmer with a missing child. A loving father secretly on Ozempic. A revolutionary. Yesterday? Broken. Lost. Hyena in the club girl . A bunny rabbit. So bring your beautiful beluga blue eyes here, hold my hand and come walk with me. 1. Who is going to clean your toilets? You know when you’re at kick-ons and you say something that you think is genius but everyone goes completely quiet, break-out rooms form, and you’re suddenly chain-smoking a full packet of Double Happiness and considering sobriety in a really big way? That is how this video feels. It captures the experience of saying something completely off chops and immediately being victim to the response. I’ve titled this the Monday monologues after a weekend of ups and downs and waking up to several essay messages about ways in which you’ve behaved. Homework for my therapist. 2. Ed Hardy fashion show, Sydney 2009 We used to ride horseback before Uber came and ruined that. And Sydney used to be a place where risk was taken and kings were crowned. Now all we know is nude beaches and the new airport next to the Art Gallery of New South Wales; oh how empires crumble. At 5:30, a group of models dance to Sidney Samson’s Riverside. Black Jesus Amen Fashion ! 3. Nicki Minaj puts the Barbz in time out Nicki Minaj doesn’t believe in prisons, just time out. She’s abolitionist like that. And with the release of Pink Friday 2 it’s important to remember that we Barbz need to be checked every now and again. In this hilarious camera-blocked Instagram Live, Nicki puts her fans in time out after they made her trend on Twitter, demanding an update to her breakout hit Super Bass. She also shuts down allegations that she’s 5ft 2in, when she is in fact 5ft 3in. 4. The Twin Towers – Seinfield Spec Script Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? Read more When 9/11 happened my grandmother sat me down and told me that the third world war was beginning … and then took me to kindy and told me to have the best day ever. As a TV writer I gotta do a shoutout to my favourite spec script and page turner of all time. 5. Saoirse Ronan by RXKNephew This certified banger is perfect for the car, especially when your licence is suspended. I personally believe licences should be suggestions but this is why I don’t run society. It’s a paranoid brain dump and an ode to Saoirse Ronan, one of the top 100 Irish people of all time. 6. It’s not about the pasta! Vanderpump Rules cast members Lala Kent and James Kennedy have a heated exchange over lunch that bleeds into the street. It’s about pasta, though rumours among fans say that “pasta” is a potential industry codeword for *sniff* something else – which other cast members have strenuously denied. Honestly, if you are not fighting your besties like this in the streets, then what’s the point? 7. Crackhead Barney & Friends Crackhead Barney is a lot of things. A comedian. An artist. An interviewer. She once said : “You know my parents told me you could be whatever you want. And then when I started this show they were like, that’s not what we meant.” I fell in love with Crackhead Barney during her coverage of a Maga protest leading up to the January 6 insurrection. You could say Congress hasn’t been the same since then – look at what they did to George Santos. Another diva down. Crackhead Barney is a self-described “black demonic spirit” and she keeps me going when the world feels so bleak. 8. David’s dead When Angie Bowie’s ex-husband David Bowie dies while she’s in the Celebrity Big Brother house, a historic miscommunication occurs. When the news is shared with fellow contestant Tiffany “New York” Pollard she immediately confuses the news with another housemate, David Gest, who was very unwell in the house and sadly passed away two months after his eviction. The Big Brother house is sent into a spiral. Perfect television. 9. Wendy Williams’ theory of the killer The idea that the world is full of killers is systematically true. There are people waiting in the sidelines waiting to take you as their next victim. Check every door. And check it twice! 10. DildoGate I’ll leave you with this one. Have a blessed day everyone. Enoch Mailangi is an award-winning screenwriter and troublemaker based in Sydney. They have written on Stan’s Year Of and Invisible Boys, SBS’s While The Men Are Away, and ABC’s Crazy Fun Park. Follow them on Instagram T he internet is a place where narcotics enthusiasts and cheaters flourish. It has become a completely godless institution with nothing but narcissistic bad faith actors at the helm. The honest come here to lie, and liars come here to be honest. We must go off-grid and destroy what has become man’s fifth limb for I worry about the children becoming psychologically brittle. They worship Skibidi Toilet and Ms. Rachel and last I checked idolatry is an unforgivable sin. Actually I don’t care. And I’ve also just changed my mind. Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) Read more See, you can do that on the internet. You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful. And the thing about the lived experience is … you can totally make it up – how beautiful. Today? I’m Irish and Italian. I DJ. And I’m an absolute vibe terrorist. Tomorrow? A farmer with a missing child. A loving father secretly on Ozempic. A revolutionary. Yesterday? Broken. Lost. Hyena in the club girl . A bunny rabbit. So bring your beautiful beluga blue eyes here, hold my hand and come walk with me. 1. Who is going to clean your toilets? You know when you’re at kick-ons and you say something that you think is genius but everyone goes completely quiet, break-out rooms form, and you’re suddenly chain-smoking a full packet of Double Happiness and considering sobriety in a really big way? That is how this video feels. It captures the experience of saying something completely off chops and immediately being victim to the response. I’ve titled this the Monday monologues after a weekend of ups and downs and waking up to several essay messages about ways in which you’ve behaved. Homework for my therapist. 2. Ed Hardy fashion show, Sydney 2009 We used to ride horseback before Uber came and ruined that. And Sydney used to be a place where risk was taken and kings were crowned. Now all we know is nude beaches and the new airport next to the Art Gallery of New South Wales; oh how empires crumble. At 5:30, a group of models dance to Sidney Samson’s Riverside. Black Jesus Amen Fashion ! 3. Nicki Minaj puts the Barbz in time out Nicki Minaj doesn’t believe in prisons, just time out. She’s abolitionist like that. And with the release of Pink Friday 2 it’s important to remember that we Barbz need to be checked every now and again. In this hilarious camera-blocked Instagram Live, Nicki puts her fans in time out after they made her trend on Twitter, demanding an update to her breakout hit Super Bass. She also shuts down allegations that she’s 5ft 2in, when she is in fact 5ft 3in. 4. The Twin Towers – Seinfield Spec Script Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? Read more When 9/11 happened my grandmother sat me down and told me that the third world war was beginning … and then took me to kindy and told me to have the best day ever. As a TV writer I gotta do a shoutout to my favourite spec script and page turner of all time. 5. Saoirse Ronan by RXKNephew This certified banger is perfect for the car, especially when your licence is suspended. I personally believe licences should be suggestions but this is why I don’t run society. It’s a paranoid brain dump and an ode to Saoirse Ronan, one of the top 100 Irish people of all time. 6. It’s not about the pasta! Vanderpump Rules cast members Lala Kent and James Kennedy have a heated exchange over lunch that bleeds into the street. It’s about pasta, though rumours among fans say that “pasta” is a potential industry codeword for *sniff* something else – which other cast members have strenuously denied. Honestly, if you are not fighting your besties like this in the streets, then what’s the point? 7. Crackhead Barney & Friends Crackhead Barney is a lot of things. A comedian. An artist. An interviewer. She once said : “You know my parents told me you could be whatever you want. And then when I started this show they were like, that’s not what we meant.” I fell in love with Crackhead Barney during her coverage of a Maga protest leading up to the January 6 insurrection. You could say Congress hasn’t been the same since then – look at what they did to George Santos. Another diva down. Crackhead Barney is a self-described “black demonic spirit” and she keeps me going when the world feels so bleak. 8. David’s dead When Angie Bowie’s ex-husband David Bowie dies while she’s in the Celebrity Big Brother house, a historic miscommunication occurs. When the news is shared with fellow contestant Tiffany “New York” Pollard she immediately confuses the news with another housemate, David Gest, who was very unwell in the house and sadly passed away two months after his eviction. The Big Brother house is sent into a spiral. Perfect television. 9. Wendy Williams’ theory of the killer The idea that the world is full of killers is systematically true. There are people waiting in the sidelines waiting to take you as their next victim. Check every door. And check it twice! 10. DildoGate I’ll leave you with this one. Have a blessed day everyone. Enoch Mailangi is an award-winning screenwriter and troublemaker based in Sydney. They have written on Stan’s Year Of and Invisible Boys, SBS’s While The Men Are Away, and ABC’s Crazy Fun Park. Follow them on Instagram T he internet is a place where narcotics enthusiasts and cheaters flourish. It has become a completely godless institution with nothing but narcissistic bad faith actors at the helm. The honest come here to lie, and liars come here to be honest. We must go off-grid and destroy what has become man’s fifth limb for I worry about the children becoming psychologically brittle. They worship Skibidi Toilet and Ms. Rachel and last I checked idolatry is an unforgivable sin. Actually I don’t care. And I’ve also just changed my mind. Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) Read more Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) Read more Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) Read more Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) Miski Omar: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) See, you can do that on the internet. You can even share your lived experience on the internet – how beautiful. And the thing about the lived experience is … you can totally make it up – how beautiful. Today? I’m Irish and Italian. I DJ. And I’m an absolute vibe terrorist. Tomorrow? A farmer with a missing child. A loving father secretly on Ozempic. A revolutionary. Yesterday? Broken. Lost. Hyena in the club girl . A bunny rabbit. So bring your beautiful beluga blue eyes here, hold my hand and come walk with me. You know when you’re at kick-ons and you say something that you think is genius but everyone goes completely quiet, break-out rooms form, and you’re suddenly chain-smoking a full packet of Double Happiness and considering sobriety in a really big way? That is how this video feels. It captures the experience of saying something completely off chops and immediately being victim to the response. I’ve titled this the Monday monologues after a weekend of ups and downs and waking up to several essay messages about ways in which you’ve behaved. Homework for my therapist. We used to ride horseback before Uber came and ruined that. And Sydney used to be a place where risk was taken and kings were crowned. Now all we know is nude beaches and the new airport next to the Art Gallery of New South Wales; oh how empires crumble. At 5:30, a group of models dance to Sidney Samson’s Riverside. Black Jesus Amen Fashion ! Nicki Minaj doesn’t believe in prisons, just time out. She’s abolitionist like that. And with the release of Pink Friday 2 it’s important to remember that we Barbz need to be checked every now and again. In this hilarious camera-blocked Instagram Live, Nicki puts her fans in time out after they made her trend on Twitter, demanding an update to her breakout hit Super Bass. She also shuts down allegations that she’s 5ft 2in, when she is in fact 5ft 3in. Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? Read more Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? Read more Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? Read more Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? Seinfeld 9/11 script: a work of genius or just pretty, pretty good? When 9/11 happened my grandmother sat me down and told me that the third world war was beginning … and then took me to kindy and told me to have the best day ever. As a TV writer I gotta do a shoutout to my favourite spec script and page turner of all time. This certified banger is perfect for the car, especially when your licence is suspended. I personally believe licences should be suggestions but this is why I don’t run society. It’s a paranoid brain dump and an ode to Saoirse Ronan, one of the top 100 Irish people of all time. Vanderpump Rules cast members Lala Kent and James Kennedy have a heated exchange over lunch that bleeds into the street. It’s about pasta, though rumours among fans say that “pasta” is a potential industry codeword for *sniff* something else – which other cast members have strenuously denied. Honestly, if you are not fighting your besties like this in the streets, then what’s the point? Crackhead Barney is a lot of things. A comedian. An artist. An interviewer. She once said : “You know my parents told me you could be whatever you want. And then when I started this show they were like, that’s not what we meant.” I fell in love with Crackhead Barney during her coverage of a Maga protest leading up to the January 6 insurrection. You could say Congress hasn’t been the same since then – look at what they did to George Santos. Another diva down. Crackhead Barney is a self-described “black demonic spirit” and she keeps me going when the world feels so bleak. When Angie Bowie’s ex-husband David Bowie dies while she’s in the Celebrity Big Brother house, a historic miscommunication occurs. When the news is shared with fellow contestant Tiffany “New York” Pollard she immediately confuses the news with another housemate, David Gest, who was very unwell in the house and sadly passed away two months after his eviction. The Big Brother house is sent into a spiral. Perfect television. The idea that the world is full of killers is systematically true. There are people waiting in the sidelines waiting to take you as their next victim. Check every door. And check it twice! I’ll leave you with this one. Have a blessed day everyone. Enoch Mailangi is an award-winning screenwriter and troublemaker based in Sydney. They have written on Stan’s Year Of and Invisible Boys, SBS’s While The Men Are Away, and ABC’s Crazy Fun Park. Follow them on Instagram Explore more on these topics Culture The funniest things on the internet Internet TikTok YouTube Seinfeld Big Brother Nicki Minaj features Share Reuse this content Culture The funniest things on the internet Internet TikTok YouTube Seinfeld Big Brother Nicki Minaj features |
Not acceptable for protesters to target MPs in their homes, says Stella Creasy
Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Not acceptable for protesters to target MPs in their homes, says Stella Creasy This article is more than 1 year old Labour MP says abuse and threats she has faced are indicative of serious problem that risks undermining democracy UK politics live – latest updates A leading Labour politician has said there is no justification for MPs to be targeted in their homes and that public life is “drowning in hate and violence”. Stella Creasy wrote in the Guardian that it was not acceptable to picket MPs in their home in response to an opinion piece by Just Stop Oil justifying the targeting of MPs . The Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow in north-east London said that harassment towards political representatives was increasingly normalised and “climate protesters picketing MPs’ houses is no more acceptable than the threats I have received from anti-abortion campaigners”. Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy Read more She added: “All would argue their cause is vital and important that such tactics are merited – but to allow these behaviours to become the norm for any is therefore to enable it for all.” In an opinion piece on Wednesday , Sarah Lunnon, the co-founder of Just Stop Oil, wrote that no Labour MPs had responded to a request to commit to resigning if after six months their leadership continued to implement Tory oil and gas projects. She added: “That’s why we are asking Labour MPs at their offices, in their constituencies, and at their homes to find their courage – and end the Tory oil and gas policies that are wrecking stable society.” It was reported over the weekend that Just Stop Oil protesters were planning to occupy Labour MPs’ homes to push them on climate policies. Creasy said the abuse she has faced as an MP, including rape and death threats and a brick through her office window, were indicative of a serious problem that risked undermining democracy. “Unless we take responsibility for addressing this, the outcome will not simply be that the loudest voices and largest wallets win: democracy will lose,” she said. She added: “What we are seeing now is not simply a livelier version of public life. You cannot have free speech if 50% of a conversation is spent living in fear that saying no will mean a risk of harm to either yourself or someone you love.” MPs are increasingly being targeted in their homes. In December, Just Stop Oil activists sang climate change-inspired Christmas carols outside Keir Starmer’s house, while Greenpeace protesters occupied the roof of Rishi Sunak’s home in Yorkshire last summer when he was away on holiday. Creasy wrote: “Every MP has not just the shadow of the deaths of our beloved friends David Amess and Jo Cox looming in our thoughts, but also knowledge of the day-to-day violence our colleagues experience. I don’t need to agree with Tobias Ellwood or Mike Freer on policy to know that a line has been crossed when their private addresses and constituency offices have been targeted – and they are not alone.” Brendan Cox, whose wife, Jo Cox, was killed in 2016 after an attack outside her constituency office by a rightwing terrorist, agreed with Creasy’s stance. Cox said the reality was that in addition to the climate crisis, “there are so many issues that people think are the most important issues”, including Israel-Gaza, nuclear arms and abortion, and that if it becomes normal to target MPs at home it would happen more and more regularly. He told the Guardian: “It’s really important that we keep our spirit of healthy, active and sometimes rambunctious democratic disagreement but when we start to target people in their homes it tips over into the risk of intimidation and it will make members of parliament more worried for their personal security.” Cox also said allowing the targeting of MPs at home risked putting off the best people from running for parliament. “If we want to create a culture where we have really good MPs, particularly women and people from minority groups as well, if we want those people to stand for parliament then creating an environment which is hostile and full of intimidation means we’ll lose many of the best people and particularly certain groups of people who will be less up for that risk.” Explore more on these topics Stella Creasy Just Stop Oil Labour Protest Environmental activism news Share Reuse this content Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Not acceptable for protesters to target MPs in their homes, says Stella Creasy This article is more than 1 year old Labour MP says abuse and threats she has faced are indicative of serious problem that risks undermining democracy UK politics live – latest updates A leading Labour politician has said there is no justification for MPs to be targeted in their homes and that public life is “drowning in hate and violence”. Stella Creasy wrote in the Guardian that it was not acceptable to picket MPs in their home in response to an opinion piece by Just Stop Oil justifying the targeting of MPs . The Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow in north-east London said that harassment towards political representatives was increasingly normalised and “climate protesters picketing MPs’ houses is no more acceptable than the threats I have received from anti-abortion campaigners”. Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy Read more She added: “All would argue their cause is vital and important that such tactics are merited – but to allow these behaviours to become the norm for any is therefore to enable it for all.” In an opinion piece on Wednesday , Sarah Lunnon, the co-founder of Just Stop Oil, wrote that no Labour MPs had responded to a request to commit to resigning if after six months their leadership continued to implement Tory oil and gas projects. She added: “That’s why we are asking Labour MPs at their offices, in their constituencies, and at their homes to find their courage – and end the Tory oil and gas policies that are wrecking stable society.” It was reported over the weekend that Just Stop Oil protesters were planning to occupy Labour MPs’ homes to push them on climate policies. Creasy said the abuse she has faced as an MP, including rape and death threats and a brick through her office window, were indicative of a serious problem that risked undermining democracy. “Unless we take responsibility for addressing this, the outcome will not simply be that the loudest voices and largest wallets win: democracy will lose,” she said. She added: “What we are seeing now is not simply a livelier version of public life. You cannot have free speech if 50% of a conversation is spent living in fear that saying no will mean a risk of harm to either yourself or someone you love.” MPs are increasingly being targeted in their homes. In December, Just Stop Oil activists sang climate change-inspired Christmas carols outside Keir Starmer’s house, while Greenpeace protesters occupied the roof of Rishi Sunak’s home in Yorkshire last summer when he was away on holiday. Creasy wrote: “Every MP has not just the shadow of the deaths of our beloved friends David Amess and Jo Cox looming in our thoughts, but also knowledge of the day-to-day violence our colleagues experience. I don’t need to agree with Tobias Ellwood or Mike Freer on policy to know that a line has been crossed when their private addresses and constituency offices have been targeted – and they are not alone.” Brendan Cox, whose wife, Jo Cox, was killed in 2016 after an attack outside her constituency office by a rightwing terrorist, agreed with Creasy’s stance. Cox said the reality was that in addition to the climate crisis, “there are so many issues that people think are the most important issues”, including Israel-Gaza, nuclear arms and abortion, and that if it becomes normal to target MPs at home it would happen more and more regularly. He told the Guardian: “It’s really important that we keep our spirit of healthy, active and sometimes rambunctious democratic disagreement but when we start to target people in their homes it tips over into the risk of intimidation and it will make members of parliament more worried for their personal security.” Cox also said allowing the targeting of MPs at home risked putting off the best people from running for parliament. “If we want to create a culture where we have really good MPs, particularly women and people from minority groups as well, if we want those people to stand for parliament then creating an environment which is hostile and full of intimidation means we’ll lose many of the best people and particularly certain groups of people who will be less up for that risk.” Explore more on these topics Stella Creasy Just Stop Oil Labour Protest Environmental activism news Share Reuse this content Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian Stella Creasy says public life is ‘drowning in hate and violence’. Photograph: Antonio Olmos/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Not acceptable for protesters to target MPs in their homes, says Stella Creasy This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Not acceptable for protesters to target MPs in their homes, says Stella Creasy This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Not acceptable for protesters to target MPs in their homes, says Stella Creasy This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Labour MP says abuse and threats she has faced are indicative of serious problem that risks undermining democracy UK politics live – latest updates Labour MP says abuse and threats she has faced are indicative of serious problem that risks undermining democracy UK politics live – latest updates Labour MP says abuse and threats she has faced are indicative of serious problem that risks undermining democracy A leading Labour politician has said there is no justification for MPs to be targeted in their homes and that public life is “drowning in hate and violence”. Stella Creasy wrote in the Guardian that it was not acceptable to picket MPs in their home in response to an opinion piece by Just Stop Oil justifying the targeting of MPs . The Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow in north-east London said that harassment towards political representatives was increasingly normalised and “climate protesters picketing MPs’ houses is no more acceptable than the threats I have received from anti-abortion campaigners”. Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy Read more She added: “All would argue their cause is vital and important that such tactics are merited – but to allow these behaviours to become the norm for any is therefore to enable it for all.” In an opinion piece on Wednesday , Sarah Lunnon, the co-founder of Just Stop Oil, wrote that no Labour MPs had responded to a request to commit to resigning if after six months their leadership continued to implement Tory oil and gas projects. She added: “That’s why we are asking Labour MPs at their offices, in their constituencies, and at their homes to find their courage – and end the Tory oil and gas policies that are wrecking stable society.” It was reported over the weekend that Just Stop Oil protesters were planning to occupy Labour MPs’ homes to push them on climate policies. Creasy said the abuse she has faced as an MP, including rape and death threats and a brick through her office window, were indicative of a serious problem that risked undermining democracy. “Unless we take responsibility for addressing this, the outcome will not simply be that the loudest voices and largest wallets win: democracy will lose,” she said. She added: “What we are seeing now is not simply a livelier version of public life. You cannot have free speech if 50% of a conversation is spent living in fear that saying no will mean a risk of harm to either yourself or someone you love.” MPs are increasingly being targeted in their homes. In December, Just Stop Oil activists sang climate change-inspired Christmas carols outside Keir Starmer’s house, while Greenpeace protesters occupied the roof of Rishi Sunak’s home in Yorkshire last summer when he was away on holiday. Creasy wrote: “Every MP has not just the shadow of the deaths of our beloved friends David Amess and Jo Cox looming in our thoughts, but also knowledge of the day-to-day violence our colleagues experience. I don’t need to agree with Tobias Ellwood or Mike Freer on policy to know that a line has been crossed when their private addresses and constituency offices have been targeted – and they are not alone.” Brendan Cox, whose wife, Jo Cox, was killed in 2016 after an attack outside her constituency office by a rightwing terrorist, agreed with Creasy’s stance. Cox said the reality was that in addition to the climate crisis, “there are so many issues that people think are the most important issues”, including Israel-Gaza, nuclear arms and abortion, and that if it becomes normal to target MPs at home it would happen more and more regularly. He told the Guardian: “It’s really important that we keep our spirit of healthy, active and sometimes rambunctious democratic disagreement but when we start to target people in their homes it tips over into the risk of intimidation and it will make members of parliament more worried for their personal security.” Cox also said allowing the targeting of MPs at home risked putting off the best people from running for parliament. “If we want to create a culture where we have really good MPs, particularly women and people from minority groups as well, if we want those people to stand for parliament then creating an environment which is hostile and full of intimidation means we’ll lose many of the best people and particularly certain groups of people who will be less up for that risk.” Explore more on these topics Stella Creasy Just Stop Oil Labour Protest Environmental activism news Share Reuse this content A leading Labour politician has said there is no justification for MPs to be targeted in their homes and that public life is “drowning in hate and violence”. Stella Creasy wrote in the Guardian that it was not acceptable to picket MPs in their home in response to an opinion piece by Just Stop Oil justifying the targeting of MPs . The Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow in north-east London said that harassment towards political representatives was increasingly normalised and “climate protesters picketing MPs’ houses is no more acceptable than the threats I have received from anti-abortion campaigners”. Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy Read more She added: “All would argue their cause is vital and important that such tactics are merited – but to allow these behaviours to become the norm for any is therefore to enable it for all.” In an opinion piece on Wednesday , Sarah Lunnon, the co-founder of Just Stop Oil, wrote that no Labour MPs had responded to a request to commit to resigning if after six months their leadership continued to implement Tory oil and gas projects. She added: “That’s why we are asking Labour MPs at their offices, in their constituencies, and at their homes to find their courage – and end the Tory oil and gas policies that are wrecking stable society.” It was reported over the weekend that Just Stop Oil protesters were planning to occupy Labour MPs’ homes to push them on climate policies. Creasy said the abuse she has faced as an MP, including rape and death threats and a brick through her office window, were indicative of a serious problem that risked undermining democracy. “Unless we take responsibility for addressing this, the outcome will not simply be that the loudest voices and largest wallets win: democracy will lose,” she said. She added: “What we are seeing now is not simply a livelier version of public life. You cannot have free speech if 50% of a conversation is spent living in fear that saying no will mean a risk of harm to either yourself or someone you love.” MPs are increasingly being targeted in their homes. In December, Just Stop Oil activists sang climate change-inspired Christmas carols outside Keir Starmer’s house, while Greenpeace protesters occupied the roof of Rishi Sunak’s home in Yorkshire last summer when he was away on holiday. Creasy wrote: “Every MP has not just the shadow of the deaths of our beloved friends David Amess and Jo Cox looming in our thoughts, but also knowledge of the day-to-day violence our colleagues experience. I don’t need to agree with Tobias Ellwood or Mike Freer on policy to know that a line has been crossed when their private addresses and constituency offices have been targeted – and they are not alone.” Brendan Cox, whose wife, Jo Cox, was killed in 2016 after an attack outside her constituency office by a rightwing terrorist, agreed with Creasy’s stance. Cox said the reality was that in addition to the climate crisis, “there are so many issues that people think are the most important issues”, including Israel-Gaza, nuclear arms and abortion, and that if it becomes normal to target MPs at home it would happen more and more regularly. He told the Guardian: “It’s really important that we keep our spirit of healthy, active and sometimes rambunctious democratic disagreement but when we start to target people in their homes it tips over into the risk of intimidation and it will make members of parliament more worried for their personal security.” Cox also said allowing the targeting of MPs at home risked putting off the best people from running for parliament. “If we want to create a culture where we have really good MPs, particularly women and people from minority groups as well, if we want those people to stand for parliament then creating an environment which is hostile and full of intimidation means we’ll lose many of the best people and particularly certain groups of people who will be less up for that risk.” Explore more on these topics Stella Creasy Just Stop Oil Labour Protest Environmental activism news Share Reuse this content A leading Labour politician has said there is no justification for MPs to be targeted in their homes and that public life is “drowning in hate and violence”. Stella Creasy wrote in the Guardian that it was not acceptable to picket MPs in their home in response to an opinion piece by Just Stop Oil justifying the targeting of MPs . The Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow in north-east London said that harassment towards political representatives was increasingly normalised and “climate protesters picketing MPs’ houses is no more acceptable than the threats I have received from anti-abortion campaigners”. Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy Read more She added: “All would argue their cause is vital and important that such tactics are merited – but to allow these behaviours to become the norm for any is therefore to enable it for all.” In an opinion piece on Wednesday , Sarah Lunnon, the co-founder of Just Stop Oil, wrote that no Labour MPs had responded to a request to commit to resigning if after six months their leadership continued to implement Tory oil and gas projects. She added: “That’s why we are asking Labour MPs at their offices, in their constituencies, and at their homes to find their courage – and end the Tory oil and gas policies that are wrecking stable society.” It was reported over the weekend that Just Stop Oil protesters were planning to occupy Labour MPs’ homes to push them on climate policies. Creasy said the abuse she has faced as an MP, including rape and death threats and a brick through her office window, were indicative of a serious problem that risked undermining democracy. “Unless we take responsibility for addressing this, the outcome will not simply be that the loudest voices and largest wallets win: democracy will lose,” she said. She added: “What we are seeing now is not simply a livelier version of public life. You cannot have free speech if 50% of a conversation is spent living in fear that saying no will mean a risk of harm to either yourself or someone you love.” MPs are increasingly being targeted in their homes. In December, Just Stop Oil activists sang climate change-inspired Christmas carols outside Keir Starmer’s house, while Greenpeace protesters occupied the roof of Rishi Sunak’s home in Yorkshire last summer when he was away on holiday. Creasy wrote: “Every MP has not just the shadow of the deaths of our beloved friends David Amess and Jo Cox looming in our thoughts, but also knowledge of the day-to-day violence our colleagues experience. I don’t need to agree with Tobias Ellwood or Mike Freer on policy to know that a line has been crossed when their private addresses and constituency offices have been targeted – and they are not alone.” Brendan Cox, whose wife, Jo Cox, was killed in 2016 after an attack outside her constituency office by a rightwing terrorist, agreed with Creasy’s stance. Cox said the reality was that in addition to the climate crisis, “there are so many issues that people think are the most important issues”, including Israel-Gaza, nuclear arms and abortion, and that if it becomes normal to target MPs at home it would happen more and more regularly. He told the Guardian: “It’s really important that we keep our spirit of healthy, active and sometimes rambunctious democratic disagreement but when we start to target people in their homes it tips over into the risk of intimidation and it will make members of parliament more worried for their personal security.” Cox also said allowing the targeting of MPs at home risked putting off the best people from running for parliament. “If we want to create a culture where we have really good MPs, particularly women and people from minority groups as well, if we want those people to stand for parliament then creating an environment which is hostile and full of intimidation means we’ll lose many of the best people and particularly certain groups of people who will be less up for that risk.” A leading Labour politician has said there is no justification for MPs to be targeted in their homes and that public life is “drowning in hate and violence”. Stella Creasy wrote in the Guardian that it was not acceptable to picket MPs in their home in response to an opinion piece by Just Stop Oil justifying the targeting of MPs . The Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow in north-east London said that harassment towards political representatives was increasingly normalised and “climate protesters picketing MPs’ houses is no more acceptable than the threats I have received from anti-abortion campaigners”. Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy Read more She added: “All would argue their cause is vital and important that such tactics are merited – but to allow these behaviours to become the norm for any is therefore to enable it for all.” In an opinion piece on Wednesday , Sarah Lunnon, the co-founder of Just Stop Oil, wrote that no Labour MPs had responded to a request to commit to resigning if after six months their leadership continued to implement Tory oil and gas projects. She added: “That’s why we are asking Labour MPs at their offices, in their constituencies, and at their homes to find their courage – and end the Tory oil and gas policies that are wrecking stable society.” It was reported over the weekend that Just Stop Oil protesters were planning to occupy Labour MPs’ homes to push them on climate policies. Creasy said the abuse she has faced as an MP, including rape and death threats and a brick through her office window, were indicative of a serious problem that risked undermining democracy. “Unless we take responsibility for addressing this, the outcome will not simply be that the loudest voices and largest wallets win: democracy will lose,” she said. She added: “What we are seeing now is not simply a livelier version of public life. You cannot have free speech if 50% of a conversation is spent living in fear that saying no will mean a risk of harm to either yourself or someone you love.” MPs are increasingly being targeted in their homes. In December, Just Stop Oil activists sang climate change-inspired Christmas carols outside Keir Starmer’s house, while Greenpeace protesters occupied the roof of Rishi Sunak’s home in Yorkshire last summer when he was away on holiday. Creasy wrote: “Every MP has not just the shadow of the deaths of our beloved friends David Amess and Jo Cox looming in our thoughts, but also knowledge of the day-to-day violence our colleagues experience. I don’t need to agree with Tobias Ellwood or Mike Freer on policy to know that a line has been crossed when their private addresses and constituency offices have been targeted – and they are not alone.” Brendan Cox, whose wife, Jo Cox, was killed in 2016 after an attack outside her constituency office by a rightwing terrorist, agreed with Creasy’s stance. Cox said the reality was that in addition to the climate crisis, “there are so many issues that people think are the most important issues”, including Israel-Gaza, nuclear arms and abortion, and that if it becomes normal to target MPs at home it would happen more and more regularly. He told the Guardian: “It’s really important that we keep our spirit of healthy, active and sometimes rambunctious democratic disagreement but when we start to target people in their homes it tips over into the risk of intimidation and it will make members of parliament more worried for their personal security.” Cox also said allowing the targeting of MPs at home risked putting off the best people from running for parliament. “If we want to create a culture where we have really good MPs, particularly women and people from minority groups as well, if we want those people to stand for parliament then creating an environment which is hostile and full of intimidation means we’ll lose many of the best people and particularly certain groups of people who will be less up for that risk.” A leading Labour politician has said there is no justification for MPs to be targeted in their homes and that public life is “drowning in hate and violence”. Stella Creasy wrote in the Guardian that it was not acceptable to picket MPs in their home in response to an opinion piece by Just Stop Oil justifying the targeting of MPs . The Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow in north-east London said that harassment towards political representatives was increasingly normalised and “climate protesters picketing MPs’ houses is no more acceptable than the threats I have received from anti-abortion campaigners”. Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy Read more Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy Read more Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy Read more Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy She added: “All would argue their cause is vital and important that such tactics are merited – but to allow these behaviours to become the norm for any is therefore to enable it for all.” In an opinion piece on Wednesday , Sarah Lunnon, the co-founder of Just Stop Oil, wrote that no Labour MPs had responded to a request to commit to resigning if after six months their leadership continued to implement Tory oil and gas projects. She added: “That’s why we are asking Labour MPs at their offices, in their constituencies, and at their homes to find their courage – and end the Tory oil and gas policies that are wrecking stable society.” It was reported over the weekend that Just Stop Oil protesters were planning to occupy Labour MPs’ homes to push them on climate policies. Creasy said the abuse she has faced as an MP, including rape and death threats and a brick through her office window, were indicative of a serious problem that risked undermining democracy. “Unless we take responsibility for addressing this, the outcome will not simply be that the loudest voices and largest wallets win: democracy will lose,” she said. She added: “What we are seeing now is not simply a livelier version of public life. You cannot have free speech if 50% of a conversation is spent living in fear that saying no will mean a risk of harm to either yourself or someone you love.” MPs are increasingly being targeted in their homes. In December, Just Stop Oil activists sang climate change-inspired Christmas carols outside Keir Starmer’s house, while Greenpeace protesters occupied the roof of Rishi Sunak’s home in Yorkshire last summer when he was away on holiday. Creasy wrote: “Every MP has not just the shadow of the deaths of our beloved friends David Amess and Jo Cox looming in our thoughts, but also knowledge of the day-to-day violence our colleagues experience. I don’t need to agree with Tobias Ellwood or Mike Freer on policy to know that a line has been crossed when their private addresses and constituency offices have been targeted – and they are not alone.” Brendan Cox, whose wife, Jo Cox, was killed in 2016 after an attack outside her constituency office by a rightwing terrorist, agreed with Creasy’s stance. Cox said the reality was that in addition to the climate crisis, “there are so many issues that people think are the most important issues”, including Israel-Gaza, nuclear arms and abortion, and that if it becomes normal to target MPs at home it would happen more and more regularly. He told the Guardian: “It’s really important that we keep our spirit of healthy, active and sometimes rambunctious democratic disagreement but when we start to target people in their homes it tips over into the risk of intimidation and it will make members of parliament more worried for their personal security.” Cox also said allowing the targeting of MPs at home risked putting off the best people from running for parliament. “If we want to create a culture where we have really good MPs, particularly women and people from minority groups as well, if we want those people to stand for parliament then creating an environment which is hostile and full of intimidation means we’ll lose many of the best people and particularly certain groups of people who will be less up for that risk.” Explore more on these topics Stella Creasy Just Stop Oil Labour Protest Environmental activism news Share Reuse this content Stella Creasy Just Stop Oil Labour Protest Environmental activism news |
UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report
3:34 This article is more than 1 year old UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report This article is more than 1 year old Dozens of lawmakers stormed out of Britain's parliament on Wednesday with tempers flaring as the three biggest political parties sought to outmanoeuvre each other over a vote on a ceasefire in Gaza. The uproar followed a decision by the speaker to ignore precedent and allow a vote which helped the opposition Labour Party avoid a large-scale rebellion among its own lawmakers over its position on the Israel-Hamas war. Lawmakers from the governing Conservatives and the opposition Scottish National Party (SNP) left the debating chamber in protest and some tried to take the rare step of holding proceedings in private. The speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, eventually apologised and said he had made his decision to allow lawmakers to vote on a range of views because he was concerned about their security after some had faced threats of violence over their stance on the war. Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis This video was edited on 22 February 2024. In an earlier version, Rosie Winterton was misidentified as Eleanor Laing. Explore more on these topics House of Commons Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives Gaza 3:34 This article is more than 1 year old UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report This article is more than 1 year old Dozens of lawmakers stormed out of Britain's parliament on Wednesday with tempers flaring as the three biggest political parties sought to outmanoeuvre each other over a vote on a ceasefire in Gaza. The uproar followed a decision by the speaker to ignore precedent and allow a vote which helped the opposition Labour Party avoid a large-scale rebellion among its own lawmakers over its position on the Israel-Hamas war. Lawmakers from the governing Conservatives and the opposition Scottish National Party (SNP) left the debating chamber in protest and some tried to take the rare step of holding proceedings in private. The speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, eventually apologised and said he had made his decision to allow lawmakers to vote on a range of views because he was concerned about their security after some had faced threats of violence over their stance on the war. Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis This video was edited on 22 February 2024. In an earlier version, Rosie Winterton was misidentified as Eleanor Laing. Explore more on these topics House of Commons Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives Gaza This article is more than 1 year old UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old UK parliament descends into chaos over Gaza ceasefire vote – video report This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Dozens of lawmakers stormed out of Britain's parliament on Wednesday with tempers flaring as the three biggest political parties sought to outmanoeuvre each other over a vote on a ceasefire in Gaza. The uproar followed a decision by the speaker to ignore precedent and allow a vote which helped the opposition Labour Party avoid a large-scale rebellion among its own lawmakers over its position on the Israel-Hamas war. Lawmakers from the governing Conservatives and the opposition Scottish National Party (SNP) left the debating chamber in protest and some tried to take the rare step of holding proceedings in private. The speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, eventually apologised and said he had made his decision to allow lawmakers to vote on a range of views because he was concerned about their security after some had faced threats of violence over their stance on the war. Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis This video was edited on 22 February 2024. In an earlier version, Rosie Winterton was misidentified as Eleanor Laing. Dozens of lawmakers stormed out of Britain's parliament on Wednesday with tempers flaring as the three biggest political parties sought to outmanoeuvre each other over a vote on a ceasefire in Gaza. The uproar followed a decision by the speaker to ignore precedent and allow a vote which helped the opposition Labour Party avoid a large-scale rebellion among its own lawmakers over its position on the Israel-Hamas war. Lawmakers from the governing Conservatives and the opposition Scottish National Party (SNP) left the debating chamber in protest and some tried to take the rare step of holding proceedings in private. The speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, eventually apologised and said he had made his decision to allow lawmakers to vote on a range of views because he was concerned about their security after some had faced threats of violence over their stance on the war. Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis This video was edited on 22 February 2024. In an earlier version, Rosie Winterton was misidentified as Eleanor Laing. Dozens of lawmakers stormed out of Britain's parliament on Wednesday with tempers flaring as the three biggest political parties sought to outmanoeuvre each other over a vote on a ceasefire in Gaza. The uproar followed a decision by the speaker to ignore precedent and allow a vote which helped the opposition Labour Party avoid a large-scale rebellion among its own lawmakers over its position on the Israel-Hamas war. Lawmakers from the governing Conservatives and the opposition Scottish National Party (SNP) left the debating chamber in protest and some tried to take the rare step of holding proceedings in private. The speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, eventually apologised and said he had made his decision to allow lawmakers to vote on a range of views because he was concerned about their security after some had faced threats of violence over their stance on the war. Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos How Keir Starmer averted Gaza ceasefire vote crisis This video was edited on 22 February 2024. In an earlier version, Rosie Winterton was misidentified as Eleanor Laing. Explore more on these topics House of Commons Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives Gaza Explore more on these topics House of Commons Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives Gaza Explore more on these topics House of Commons Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives Gaza House of Commons Labour Scottish National party (SNP) Conservatives Gaza |
Safety signals and security guards: when did Australian writers’ festivals become so fraught?
‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge View image in fullscreen ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge This article is more than 1 year old Safety signals and security guards: when did Australian writers’ festivals become so fraught? This article is more than 1 year old Perth writers’ weekend has a risk-management plan, as a culture war brews ahead of Adelaide writers’ week. How can organisers keeps festivals safe without watering them down? Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email Earlier this week, moderators at Perth writers’ weekend were issued a memo with an ominous subject heading: “Facilitator safety tips”. “Some of you will be aware of discussions around Perth Festival Writers’ Weekend and may have some concerns about the potential for disruption at the event,” the email began. “As the facilitators, we want to give you agency over your panels and the ability to manage them … these tips will help ensure the comfort and safety of everyone.” Perth festival 2024: a voyeuristic work where the public becomes the show – but not all are in on the joke Read more Devised by the festival in collaboration with Writing WA and the State Library of Western Australia, the plan recommended identifying “off-limits” topics with panellists in advance, forgoing audience Q&As if they risked becoming too inflammatory, and pre-arranging physical signals that would allow panellists to communicate their discomfort. Two designated protest areas would be set up outside the venue, and security staff would be able to step in if needed; “escalation procedures in case of a disruption” would be sent later in the week. Sign up for our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning The missive ahead of the event, which is on now, was delivered in “a mutual spirit of safety, inclusivity, respect, courtesy and tolerance”, and to create “a safe space [for panellists] to share their voices”. It is also a sign of the times. ‘Event organisers have a duty of care’ Writers’ festivals have always married literary discussion with topical issues, bringing authors and commentators together to discuss not just their work but the world around it. Occasional flare-ups and stoushes are to be expected – but as debates over the Middle East crisis continue to filter through to all areas of public life, it has had a particularly divisive effect on Australia’s arts industry , where pre-emptive risk management appears to be a new development. Melbourne’s Anna Schwartz gallery drops artist Mike Parr after political piece on Israel-Gaza war Read more In a statement to the Guardian, Perth festival’s artistic director, Iain Grandage, and Writing WA’s chief executive, William Yeoman, said the festival had the responsibility to ensure the safety, comfort and enjoyment of all participants and staff. View image in fullscreen ‘Only the narrowest and most prescriptive program avoids being about the world at large’, says former Sydney writers’ festival director Michael Williams. Photograph: Nick De Lorenzo “All event organisers have a duty to care for their attenders and it is standard, prudent practice for them to consider a wide range of measures in their event management plans,” the statement said. For Perth writers’ weekend, the new safety measures haven’t come out of nowhere. Last week an open letter to the festival was signed by hundreds of artists, musicians and academics, calling on the festival and Writing WA to issue a public apology to the Palestinian community over the decision to platform headliner Deborah Conway, an avowed Zionist, in its literature and ideas program. In January, Perth festival was already responding to complaints by unspecified groups over diversity and representation in the program. “While programming decisions were made prior to these conflicts breaking out … we are bringing more authors to the writers’ weekend,” Yeoman wrote in an email in January. First Nations artist Mabel Gibson and three writers of Arab heritage were subsequently added to the lineup. ‘We have to be able to hear other people’ Controversy at Australian writers’ festivals is nothing new. In 2016, Yassmin Abdel-Magied famously walked out of Lionel Shriver’s keynote address at the Brisbane writers’ festival, and accused the We Need to Talk About Kevin author of delivering “a poisoned package wrapped up in arrogance and delivered with condescension”. In 2018, the Sydney writer’s festival became the scene of an international scandal, after American-Dominican novelist Junot Díaz was publicly accused of sexual misconduct by a member of the audience, American writer Zinzi Clemmons. Diaz cancelled his scheduled appearances at the festival, and has denied the allegations . View image in fullscreen ‘We have to be able to hear other people’, says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler Photograph: Kristoffer Paulsen Ahead of last year’s Adelaide writer’s week, a storm brewed over the inclusion of Susan Abulhawa , a Palestinian-American writer who had described Volodymyr Zelenskiy as a “Nazi-promoting Zionist” on Twitter; and Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, whose poetry the Anti-Defamation League criticised as antisemitic. Sponsors pulled out, as did three Ukrainian authors, and Adler faced down the media, arguing against the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and arguing for the freedom of discussion and debate. “None of this is simple,” she told the Guardian at the time . “People are free to deeply object.” A fortnight away from this year’s festival, Adler has found herself once more in the firing line after The Australian’s literary editor Caroline Overington described the 2024 program as being “positively stuffed with guests whose views on the conflict in the Middle East are frothingly anti-Israel”. “There are five writers talking about the history of the Middle East, five out of 202 writers, and not one of them would agree with the other,” Adler told the Guardian this week. “If that’s called a program packed with anti-Israel individuals, then [The Australian] and I are obviously working with different abacuses.” Adler says there will be no new safety measures put in place for this year’s writer’s week. . @adelwritersweek accuracy went out the window a long time ago in much #MSM . Our programme is apparently “positively stuffed “ with “frothingly anti-Israel”writers. Get a grip and get your abacus out:5 writers among 202 invitees on the history of the Israel-Palestine war pic.twitter.com/sj6k0T2Xuo — Louise Adler (@louiseadler) February 16, 2024 “There’s always been a civil, courteous and polite exchange of views. Yes, sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?” she says. “We have to be able to hear other people, that’s what I think is important. And passion or commitment to one’s opinion is perfectly legitimate.” “The moderators have the power of the microphone, and the right to switch it off during Q&As if an audience member becomes offensive, racist or derogatory,” she says. “It can be done with dignity and authority.” ‘The more you mediate this, the less you fulfil the brief’ Before he was editor of the Monthly, Michael Williams was artistic director of Sydney writers’ festival, and head programmer for the Wheeler Centre. He’s a frequent moderator of panels and talks at writers’ festivals, which he sees as platforms for public discourse where conflicts of opinion are inevitable. ‘Poetic’, ‘fearless’, ‘a creative triumph’: the best Australian books out in February Read more “If you don’t want to be in a place where there’s public protests or anxiety expressed about government policy, or questions being asked about human rights, then you probably shouldn’t be putting on a public ideas festival right now, because that’s what’s going to happen,” he says. “Only the narrowest and most prescriptive program avoids being about the world at large.” View image in fullscreen Kae Tempest talks to Michael Williams at the 2016 Sydney writers’ festival. Photograph: Prudence Upton Williams says he understands Perth festival’s anxiety over maintaining a safe and respectful environment for all participants. “But short of making sure that people avoid deliberately hurting or vilifying others, going beyond that comes across as overthinking,” he says. The Guardian view on festivals and the future: bound together by the power of a shared vision | Editorial Read more “The value of a writers’ festival is that it is live – people who have thought deeply about the ideas coming together to talk in an organic way with each other and with readers. And the more you mediate this – the more you try and filter that through a set of pre-scripted things or preconditions – the less it’s fulfilling the brief of what you want a good live literary event to be.” Perth festival’s statement underlined that its plan was to encourage, not limit, lively and free discussion, “in a mutual spirit of safety, inclusivity, respect and courtesy”. “Our intention, as always, is to equip artists with the most comfortable circumstances possible to be themselves.” Talks festivals need to strike a balance “between tone policing and content policing”, Williams says – and the increasingly complicated role played by organisational boards should not be underestimated either. “Cultural boards now have lots of pressures on them from sponsors and donors and participants alike, and they’re trying to achieve that balance,” he says. “It’s an invidious task.” Perth writers’ weekend runs until Sunday 25 February. Adelaide writers’ week runs 2–7 March Explore more on these topics Festivals Australian books Perth festival Adelaide festival features Share Reuse this content ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge View image in fullscreen ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge This article is more than 1 year old Safety signals and security guards: when did Australian writers’ festivals become so fraught? This article is more than 1 year old Perth writers’ weekend has a risk-management plan, as a culture war brews ahead of Adelaide writers’ week. How can organisers keeps festivals safe without watering them down? Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email Earlier this week, moderators at Perth writers’ weekend were issued a memo with an ominous subject heading: “Facilitator safety tips”. “Some of you will be aware of discussions around Perth Festival Writers’ Weekend and may have some concerns about the potential for disruption at the event,” the email began. “As the facilitators, we want to give you agency over your panels and the ability to manage them … these tips will help ensure the comfort and safety of everyone.” Perth festival 2024: a voyeuristic work where the public becomes the show – but not all are in on the joke Read more Devised by the festival in collaboration with Writing WA and the State Library of Western Australia, the plan recommended identifying “off-limits” topics with panellists in advance, forgoing audience Q&As if they risked becoming too inflammatory, and pre-arranging physical signals that would allow panellists to communicate their discomfort. Two designated protest areas would be set up outside the venue, and security staff would be able to step in if needed; “escalation procedures in case of a disruption” would be sent later in the week. Sign up for our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning The missive ahead of the event, which is on now, was delivered in “a mutual spirit of safety, inclusivity, respect, courtesy and tolerance”, and to create “a safe space [for panellists] to share their voices”. It is also a sign of the times. ‘Event organisers have a duty of care’ Writers’ festivals have always married literary discussion with topical issues, bringing authors and commentators together to discuss not just their work but the world around it. Occasional flare-ups and stoushes are to be expected – but as debates over the Middle East crisis continue to filter through to all areas of public life, it has had a particularly divisive effect on Australia’s arts industry , where pre-emptive risk management appears to be a new development. Melbourne’s Anna Schwartz gallery drops artist Mike Parr after political piece on Israel-Gaza war Read more In a statement to the Guardian, Perth festival’s artistic director, Iain Grandage, and Writing WA’s chief executive, William Yeoman, said the festival had the responsibility to ensure the safety, comfort and enjoyment of all participants and staff. View image in fullscreen ‘Only the narrowest and most prescriptive program avoids being about the world at large’, says former Sydney writers’ festival director Michael Williams. Photograph: Nick De Lorenzo “All event organisers have a duty to care for their attenders and it is standard, prudent practice for them to consider a wide range of measures in their event management plans,” the statement said. For Perth writers’ weekend, the new safety measures haven’t come out of nowhere. Last week an open letter to the festival was signed by hundreds of artists, musicians and academics, calling on the festival and Writing WA to issue a public apology to the Palestinian community over the decision to platform headliner Deborah Conway, an avowed Zionist, in its literature and ideas program. In January, Perth festival was already responding to complaints by unspecified groups over diversity and representation in the program. “While programming decisions were made prior to these conflicts breaking out … we are bringing more authors to the writers’ weekend,” Yeoman wrote in an email in January. First Nations artist Mabel Gibson and three writers of Arab heritage were subsequently added to the lineup. ‘We have to be able to hear other people’ Controversy at Australian writers’ festivals is nothing new. In 2016, Yassmin Abdel-Magied famously walked out of Lionel Shriver’s keynote address at the Brisbane writers’ festival, and accused the We Need to Talk About Kevin author of delivering “a poisoned package wrapped up in arrogance and delivered with condescension”. In 2018, the Sydney writer’s festival became the scene of an international scandal, after American-Dominican novelist Junot Díaz was publicly accused of sexual misconduct by a member of the audience, American writer Zinzi Clemmons. Diaz cancelled his scheduled appearances at the festival, and has denied the allegations . View image in fullscreen ‘We have to be able to hear other people’, says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler Photograph: Kristoffer Paulsen Ahead of last year’s Adelaide writer’s week, a storm brewed over the inclusion of Susan Abulhawa , a Palestinian-American writer who had described Volodymyr Zelenskiy as a “Nazi-promoting Zionist” on Twitter; and Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, whose poetry the Anti-Defamation League criticised as antisemitic. Sponsors pulled out, as did three Ukrainian authors, and Adler faced down the media, arguing against the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and arguing for the freedom of discussion and debate. “None of this is simple,” she told the Guardian at the time . “People are free to deeply object.” A fortnight away from this year’s festival, Adler has found herself once more in the firing line after The Australian’s literary editor Caroline Overington described the 2024 program as being “positively stuffed with guests whose views on the conflict in the Middle East are frothingly anti-Israel”. “There are five writers talking about the history of the Middle East, five out of 202 writers, and not one of them would agree with the other,” Adler told the Guardian this week. “If that’s called a program packed with anti-Israel individuals, then [The Australian] and I are obviously working with different abacuses.” Adler says there will be no new safety measures put in place for this year’s writer’s week. . @adelwritersweek accuracy went out the window a long time ago in much #MSM . Our programme is apparently “positively stuffed “ with “frothingly anti-Israel”writers. Get a grip and get your abacus out:5 writers among 202 invitees on the history of the Israel-Palestine war pic.twitter.com/sj6k0T2Xuo — Louise Adler (@louiseadler) February 16, 2024 “There’s always been a civil, courteous and polite exchange of views. Yes, sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?” she says. “We have to be able to hear other people, that’s what I think is important. And passion or commitment to one’s opinion is perfectly legitimate.” “The moderators have the power of the microphone, and the right to switch it off during Q&As if an audience member becomes offensive, racist or derogatory,” she says. “It can be done with dignity and authority.” ‘The more you mediate this, the less you fulfil the brief’ Before he was editor of the Monthly, Michael Williams was artistic director of Sydney writers’ festival, and head programmer for the Wheeler Centre. He’s a frequent moderator of panels and talks at writers’ festivals, which he sees as platforms for public discourse where conflicts of opinion are inevitable. ‘Poetic’, ‘fearless’, ‘a creative triumph’: the best Australian books out in February Read more “If you don’t want to be in a place where there’s public protests or anxiety expressed about government policy, or questions being asked about human rights, then you probably shouldn’t be putting on a public ideas festival right now, because that’s what’s going to happen,” he says. “Only the narrowest and most prescriptive program avoids being about the world at large.” View image in fullscreen Kae Tempest talks to Michael Williams at the 2016 Sydney writers’ festival. Photograph: Prudence Upton Williams says he understands Perth festival’s anxiety over maintaining a safe and respectful environment for all participants. “But short of making sure that people avoid deliberately hurting or vilifying others, going beyond that comes across as overthinking,” he says. The Guardian view on festivals and the future: bound together by the power of a shared vision | Editorial Read more “The value of a writers’ festival is that it is live – people who have thought deeply about the ideas coming together to talk in an organic way with each other and with readers. And the more you mediate this – the more you try and filter that through a set of pre-scripted things or preconditions – the less it’s fulfilling the brief of what you want a good live literary event to be.” Perth festival’s statement underlined that its plan was to encourage, not limit, lively and free discussion, “in a mutual spirit of safety, inclusivity, respect and courtesy”. “Our intention, as always, is to equip artists with the most comfortable circumstances possible to be themselves.” Talks festivals need to strike a balance “between tone policing and content policing”, Williams says – and the increasingly complicated role played by organisational boards should not be underestimated either. “Cultural boards now have lots of pressures on them from sponsors and donors and participants alike, and they’re trying to achieve that balance,” he says. “It’s an invidious task.” Perth writers’ weekend runs until Sunday 25 February. Adelaide writers’ week runs 2–7 March Explore more on these topics Festivals Australian books Perth festival Adelaide festival features Share Reuse this content ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge View image in fullscreen ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge View image in fullscreen ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge View image in fullscreen ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge View image in fullscreen ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge ‘Sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?’ says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler. Photograph: Andrew Beveridge This article is more than 1 year old Safety signals and security guards: when did Australian writers’ festivals become so fraught? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Safety signals and security guards: when did Australian writers’ festivals become so fraught? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Safety signals and security guards: when did Australian writers’ festivals become so fraught? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Perth writers’ weekend has a risk-management plan, as a culture war brews ahead of Adelaide writers’ week. How can organisers keeps festivals safe without watering them down? Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email Perth writers’ weekend has a risk-management plan, as a culture war brews ahead of Adelaide writers’ week. How can organisers keeps festivals safe without watering them down? Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email Perth writers’ weekend has a risk-management plan, as a culture war brews ahead of Adelaide writers’ week. How can organisers keeps festivals safe without watering them down? Earlier this week, moderators at Perth writers’ weekend were issued a memo with an ominous subject heading: “Facilitator safety tips”. “Some of you will be aware of discussions around Perth Festival Writers’ Weekend and may have some concerns about the potential for disruption at the event,” the email began. “As the facilitators, we want to give you agency over your panels and the ability to manage them … these tips will help ensure the comfort and safety of everyone.” Perth festival 2024: a voyeuristic work where the public becomes the show – but not all are in on the joke Read more Devised by the festival in collaboration with Writing WA and the State Library of Western Australia, the plan recommended identifying “off-limits” topics with panellists in advance, forgoing audience Q&As if they risked becoming too inflammatory, and pre-arranging physical signals that would allow panellists to communicate their discomfort. Two designated protest areas would be set up outside the venue, and security staff would be able to step in if needed; “escalation procedures in case of a disruption” would be sent later in the week. Sign up for our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning The missive ahead of the event, which is on now, was delivered in “a mutual spirit of safety, inclusivity, respect, courtesy and tolerance”, and to create “a safe space [for panellists] to share their voices”. It is also a sign of the times. ‘Event organisers have a duty of care’ Writers’ festivals have always married literary discussion with topical issues, bringing authors and commentators together to discuss not just their work but the world around it. Occasional flare-ups and stoushes are to be expected – but as debates over the Middle East crisis continue to filter through to all areas of public life, it has had a particularly divisive effect on Australia’s arts industry , where pre-emptive risk management appears to be a new development. Melbourne’s Anna Schwartz gallery drops artist Mike Parr after political piece on Israel-Gaza war Read more In a statement to the Guardian, Perth festival’s artistic director, Iain Grandage, and Writing WA’s chief executive, William Yeoman, said the festival had the responsibility to ensure the safety, comfort and enjoyment of all participants and staff. View image in fullscreen ‘Only the narrowest and most prescriptive program avoids being about the world at large’, says former Sydney writers’ festival director Michael Williams. Photograph: Nick De Lorenzo “All event organisers have a duty to care for their attenders and it is standard, prudent practice for them to consider a wide range of measures in their event management plans,” the statement said. For Perth writers’ weekend, the new safety measures haven’t come out of nowhere. Last week an open letter to the festival was signed by hundreds of artists, musicians and academics, calling on the festival and Writing WA to issue a public apology to the Palestinian community over the decision to platform headliner Deborah Conway, an avowed Zionist, in its literature and ideas program. In January, Perth festival was already responding to complaints by unspecified groups over diversity and representation in the program. “While programming decisions were made prior to these conflicts breaking out … we are bringing more authors to the writers’ weekend,” Yeoman wrote in an email in January. First Nations artist Mabel Gibson and three writers of Arab heritage were subsequently added to the lineup. ‘We have to be able to hear other people’ Controversy at Australian writers’ festivals is nothing new. In 2016, Yassmin Abdel-Magied famously walked out of Lionel Shriver’s keynote address at the Brisbane writers’ festival, and accused the We Need to Talk About Kevin author of delivering “a poisoned package wrapped up in arrogance and delivered with condescension”. In 2018, the Sydney writer’s festival became the scene of an international scandal, after American-Dominican novelist Junot Díaz was publicly accused of sexual misconduct by a member of the audience, American writer Zinzi Clemmons. Diaz cancelled his scheduled appearances at the festival, and has denied the allegations . View image in fullscreen ‘We have to be able to hear other people’, says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler Photograph: Kristoffer Paulsen Ahead of last year’s Adelaide writer’s week, a storm brewed over the inclusion of Susan Abulhawa , a Palestinian-American writer who had described Volodymyr Zelenskiy as a “Nazi-promoting Zionist” on Twitter; and Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, whose poetry the Anti-Defamation League criticised as antisemitic. Sponsors pulled out, as did three Ukrainian authors, and Adler faced down the media, arguing against the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and arguing for the freedom of discussion and debate. “None of this is simple,” she told the Guardian at the time . “People are free to deeply object.” A fortnight away from this year’s festival, Adler has found herself once more in the firing line after The Australian’s literary editor Caroline Overington described the 2024 program as being “positively stuffed with guests whose views on the conflict in the Middle East are frothingly anti-Israel”. “There are five writers talking about the history of the Middle East, five out of 202 writers, and not one of them would agree with the other,” Adler told the Guardian this week. “If that’s called a program packed with anti-Israel individuals, then [The Australian] and I are obviously working with different abacuses.” Adler says there will be no new safety measures put in place for this year’s writer’s week. . @adelwritersweek accuracy went out the window a long time ago in much #MSM . Our programme is apparently “positively stuffed “ with “frothingly anti-Israel”writers. Get a grip and get your abacus out:5 writers among 202 invitees on the history of the Israel-Palestine war pic.twitter.com/sj6k0T2Xuo — Louise Adler (@louiseadler) February 16, 2024 “There’s always been a civil, courteous and polite exchange of views. Yes, sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?” she says. “We have to be able to hear other people, that’s what I think is important. And passion or commitment to one’s opinion is perfectly legitimate.” “The moderators have the power of the microphone, and the right to switch it off during Q&As if an audience member becomes offensive, racist or derogatory,” she says. “It can be done with dignity and authority.” ‘The more you mediate this, the less you fulfil the brief’ Before he was editor of the Monthly, Michael Williams was artistic director of Sydney writers’ festival, and head programmer for the Wheeler Centre. He’s a frequent moderator of panels and talks at writers’ festivals, which he sees as platforms for public discourse where conflicts of opinion are inevitable. ‘Poetic’, ‘fearless’, ‘a creative triumph’: the best Australian books out in February Read more “If you don’t want to be in a place where there’s public protests or anxiety expressed about government policy, or questions being asked about human rights, then you probably shouldn’t be putting on a public ideas festival right now, because that’s what’s going to happen,” he says. “Only the narrowest and most prescriptive program avoids being about the world at large.” View image in fullscreen Kae Tempest talks to Michael Williams at the 2016 Sydney writers’ festival. Photograph: Prudence Upton Williams says he understands Perth festival’s anxiety over maintaining a safe and respectful environment for all participants. “But short of making sure that people avoid deliberately hurting or vilifying others, going beyond that comes across as overthinking,” he says. The Guardian view on festivals and the future: bound together by the power of a shared vision | Editorial Read more “The value of a writers’ festival is that it is live – people who have thought deeply about the ideas coming together to talk in an organic way with each other and with readers. And the more you mediate this – the more you try and filter that through a set of pre-scripted things or preconditions – the less it’s fulfilling the brief of what you want a good live literary event to be.” Perth festival’s statement underlined that its plan was to encourage, not limit, lively and free discussion, “in a mutual spirit of safety, inclusivity, respect and courtesy”. “Our intention, as always, is to equip artists with the most comfortable circumstances possible to be themselves.” Talks festivals need to strike a balance “between tone policing and content policing”, Williams says – and the increasingly complicated role played by organisational boards should not be underestimated either. “Cultural boards now have lots of pressures on them from sponsors and donors and participants alike, and they’re trying to achieve that balance,” he says. “It’s an invidious task.” Perth writers’ weekend runs until Sunday 25 February. Adelaide writers’ week runs 2–7 March Explore more on these topics Festivals Australian books Perth festival Adelaide festival features Share Reuse this content Earlier this week, moderators at Perth writers’ weekend were issued a memo with an ominous subject heading: “Facilitator safety tips”. “Some of you will be aware of discussions around Perth Festival Writers’ Weekend and may have some concerns about the potential for disruption at the event,” the email began. “As the facilitators, we want to give you agency over your panels and the ability to manage them … these tips will help ensure the comfort and safety of everyone.” Perth festival 2024: a voyeuristic work where the public becomes the show – but not all are in on the joke Read more Devised by the festival in collaboration with Writing WA and the State Library of Western Australia, the plan recommended identifying “off-limits” topics with panellists in advance, forgoing audience Q&As if they risked becoming too inflammatory, and pre-arranging physical signals that would allow panellists to communicate their discomfort. Two designated protest areas would be set up outside the venue, and security staff would be able to step in if needed; “escalation procedures in case of a disruption” would be sent later in the week. Sign up for our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning The missive ahead of the event, which is on now, was delivered in “a mutual spirit of safety, inclusivity, respect, courtesy and tolerance”, and to create “a safe space [for panellists] to share their voices”. It is also a sign of the times. ‘Event organisers have a duty of care’ Writers’ festivals have always married literary discussion with topical issues, bringing authors and commentators together to discuss not just their work but the world around it. Occasional flare-ups and stoushes are to be expected – but as debates over the Middle East crisis continue to filter through to all areas of public life, it has had a particularly divisive effect on Australia’s arts industry , where pre-emptive risk management appears to be a new development. Melbourne’s Anna Schwartz gallery drops artist Mike Parr after political piece on Israel-Gaza war Read more In a statement to the Guardian, Perth festival’s artistic director, Iain Grandage, and Writing WA’s chief executive, William Yeoman, said the festival had the responsibility to ensure the safety, comfort and enjoyment of all participants and staff. View image in fullscreen ‘Only the narrowest and most prescriptive program avoids being about the world at large’, says former Sydney writers’ festival director Michael Williams. Photograph: Nick De Lorenzo “All event organisers have a duty to care for their attenders and it is standard, prudent practice for them to consider a wide range of measures in their event management plans,” the statement said. For Perth writers’ weekend, the new safety measures haven’t come out of nowhere. Last week an open letter to the festival was signed by hundreds of artists, musicians and academics, calling on the festival and Writing WA to issue a public apology to the Palestinian community over the decision to platform headliner Deborah Conway, an avowed Zionist, in its literature and ideas program. In January, Perth festival was already responding to complaints by unspecified groups over diversity and representation in the program. “While programming decisions were made prior to these conflicts breaking out … we are bringing more authors to the writers’ weekend,” Yeoman wrote in an email in January. First Nations artist Mabel Gibson and three writers of Arab heritage were subsequently added to the lineup. ‘We have to be able to hear other people’ Controversy at Australian writers’ festivals is nothing new. In 2016, Yassmin Abdel-Magied famously walked out of Lionel Shriver’s keynote address at the Brisbane writers’ festival, and accused the We Need to Talk About Kevin author of delivering “a poisoned package wrapped up in arrogance and delivered with condescension”. In 2018, the Sydney writer’s festival became the scene of an international scandal, after American-Dominican novelist Junot Díaz was publicly accused of sexual misconduct by a member of the audience, American writer Zinzi Clemmons. Diaz cancelled his scheduled appearances at the festival, and has denied the allegations . View image in fullscreen ‘We have to be able to hear other people’, says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler Photograph: Kristoffer Paulsen Ahead of last year’s Adelaide writer’s week, a storm brewed over the inclusion of Susan Abulhawa , a Palestinian-American writer who had described Volodymyr Zelenskiy as a “Nazi-promoting Zionist” on Twitter; and Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, whose poetry the Anti-Defamation League criticised as antisemitic. Sponsors pulled out, as did three Ukrainian authors, and Adler faced down the media, arguing against the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and arguing for the freedom of discussion and debate. “None of this is simple,” she told the Guardian at the time . “People are free to deeply object.” A fortnight away from this year’s festival, Adler has found herself once more in the firing line after The Australian’s literary editor Caroline Overington described the 2024 program as being “positively stuffed with guests whose views on the conflict in the Middle East are frothingly anti-Israel”. “There are five writers talking about the history of the Middle East, five out of 202 writers, and not one of them would agree with the other,” Adler told the Guardian this week. “If that’s called a program packed with anti-Israel individuals, then [The Australian] and I are obviously working with different abacuses.” Adler says there will be no new safety measures put in place for this year’s writer’s week. . @adelwritersweek accuracy went out the window a long time ago in much #MSM . Our programme is apparently “positively stuffed “ with “frothingly anti-Israel”writers. Get a grip and get your abacus out:5 writers among 202 invitees on the history of the Israel-Palestine war pic.twitter.com/sj6k0T2Xuo — Louise Adler (@louiseadler) February 16, 2024 “There’s always been a civil, courteous and polite exchange of views. Yes, sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?” she says. “We have to be able to hear other people, that’s what I think is important. And passion or commitment to one’s opinion is perfectly legitimate.” “The moderators have the power of the microphone, and the right to switch it off during Q&As if an audience member becomes offensive, racist or derogatory,” she says. “It can be done with dignity and authority.” ‘The more you mediate this, the less you fulfil the brief’ Before he was editor of the Monthly, Michael Williams was artistic director of Sydney writers’ festival, and head programmer for the Wheeler Centre. He’s a frequent moderator of panels and talks at writers’ festivals, which he sees as platforms for public discourse where conflicts of opinion are inevitable. ‘Poetic’, ‘fearless’, ‘a creative triumph’: the best Australian books out in February Read more “If you don’t want to be in a place where there’s public protests or anxiety expressed about government policy, or questions being asked about human rights, then you probably shouldn’t be putting on a public ideas festival right now, because that’s what’s going to happen,” he says. “Only the narrowest and most prescriptive program avoids being about the world at large.” View image in fullscreen Kae Tempest talks to Michael Williams at the 2016 Sydney writers’ festival. Photograph: Prudence Upton Williams says he understands Perth festival’s anxiety over maintaining a safe and respectful environment for all participants. “But short of making sure that people avoid deliberately hurting or vilifying others, going beyond that comes across as overthinking,” he says. The Guardian view on festivals and the future: bound together by the power of a shared vision | Editorial Read more “The value of a writers’ festival is that it is live – people who have thought deeply about the ideas coming together to talk in an organic way with each other and with readers. And the more you mediate this – the more you try and filter that through a set of pre-scripted things or preconditions – the less it’s fulfilling the brief of what you want a good live literary event to be.” Perth festival’s statement underlined that its plan was to encourage, not limit, lively and free discussion, “in a mutual spirit of safety, inclusivity, respect and courtesy”. “Our intention, as always, is to equip artists with the most comfortable circumstances possible to be themselves.” Talks festivals need to strike a balance “between tone policing and content policing”, Williams says – and the increasingly complicated role played by organisational boards should not be underestimated either. “Cultural boards now have lots of pressures on them from sponsors and donors and participants alike, and they’re trying to achieve that balance,” he says. “It’s an invidious task.” Perth writers’ weekend runs until Sunday 25 February. Adelaide writers’ week runs 2–7 March Explore more on these topics Festivals Australian books Perth festival Adelaide festival features Share Reuse this content Earlier this week, moderators at Perth writers’ weekend were issued a memo with an ominous subject heading: “Facilitator safety tips”. “Some of you will be aware of discussions around Perth Festival Writers’ Weekend and may have some concerns about the potential for disruption at the event,” the email began. “As the facilitators, we want to give you agency over your panels and the ability to manage them … these tips will help ensure the comfort and safety of everyone.” Perth festival 2024: a voyeuristic work where the public becomes the show – but not all are in on the joke Read more Devised by the festival in collaboration with Writing WA and the State Library of Western Australia, the plan recommended identifying “off-limits” topics with panellists in advance, forgoing audience Q&As if they risked becoming too inflammatory, and pre-arranging physical signals that would allow panellists to communicate their discomfort. Two designated protest areas would be set up outside the venue, and security staff would be able to step in if needed; “escalation procedures in case of a disruption” would be sent later in the week. Sign up for our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning The missive ahead of the event, which is on now, was delivered in “a mutual spirit of safety, inclusivity, respect, courtesy and tolerance”, and to create “a safe space [for panellists] to share their voices”. It is also a sign of the times. ‘Event organisers have a duty of care’ Writers’ festivals have always married literary discussion with topical issues, bringing authors and commentators together to discuss not just their work but the world around it. Occasional flare-ups and stoushes are to be expected – but as debates over the Middle East crisis continue to filter through to all areas of public life, it has had a particularly divisive effect on Australia’s arts industry , where pre-emptive risk management appears to be a new development. Melbourne’s Anna Schwartz gallery drops artist Mike Parr after political piece on Israel-Gaza war Read more In a statement to the Guardian, Perth festival’s artistic director, Iain Grandage, and Writing WA’s chief executive, William Yeoman, said the festival had the responsibility to ensure the safety, comfort and enjoyment of all participants and staff. View image in fullscreen ‘Only the narrowest and most prescriptive program avoids being about the world at large’, says former Sydney writers’ festival director Michael Williams. Photograph: Nick De Lorenzo “All event organisers have a duty to care for their attenders and it is standard, prudent practice for them to consider a wide range of measures in their event management plans,” the statement said. For Perth writers’ weekend, the new safety measures haven’t come out of nowhere. Last week an open letter to the festival was signed by hundreds of artists, musicians and academics, calling on the festival and Writing WA to issue a public apology to the Palestinian community over the decision to platform headliner Deborah Conway, an avowed Zionist, in its literature and ideas program. In January, Perth festival was already responding to complaints by unspecified groups over diversity and representation in the program. “While programming decisions were made prior to these conflicts breaking out … we are bringing more authors to the writers’ weekend,” Yeoman wrote in an email in January. First Nations artist Mabel Gibson and three writers of Arab heritage were subsequently added to the lineup. ‘We have to be able to hear other people’ Controversy at Australian writers’ festivals is nothing new. In 2016, Yassmin Abdel-Magied famously walked out of Lionel Shriver’s keynote address at the Brisbane writers’ festival, and accused the We Need to Talk About Kevin author of delivering “a poisoned package wrapped up in arrogance and delivered with condescension”. In 2018, the Sydney writer’s festival became the scene of an international scandal, after American-Dominican novelist Junot Díaz was publicly accused of sexual misconduct by a member of the audience, American writer Zinzi Clemmons. Diaz cancelled his scheduled appearances at the festival, and has denied the allegations . View image in fullscreen ‘We have to be able to hear other people’, says Adelaide writers’ week director Louise Adler Photograph: Kristoffer Paulsen Ahead of last year’s Adelaide writer’s week, a storm brewed over the inclusion of Susan Abulhawa , a Palestinian-American writer who had described Volodymyr Zelenskiy as a “Nazi-promoting Zionist” on Twitter; and Palestinian poet Mohammed El-Kurd, whose poetry the Anti-Defamation League criticised as antisemitic. Sponsors pulled out, as did three Ukrainian authors, and Adler faced down the media, arguing against the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and arguing for the freedom of discussion and debate. “None of this is simple,” she told the Guardian at the time . “People are free to deeply object.” A fortnight away from this year’s festival, Adler has found herself once more in the firing line after The Australian’s literary editor Caroline Overington described the 2024 program as being “positively stuffed with guests whose views on the conflict in the Middle East are frothingly anti-Israel”. “There are five writers talking about the history of the Middle East, five out of 202 writers, and not one of them would agree with the other,” Adler told the Guardian this week. “If that’s called a program packed with anti-Israel individuals, then [The Australian] and I are obviously working with different abacuses.” Adler says there will be no new safety measures put in place for this year’s writer’s week. . @adelwritersweek accuracy went out the window a long time ago in much #MSM . Our programme is apparently “positively stuffed “ with “frothingly anti-Israel”writers. Get a grip and get your abacus out:5 writers among 202 invitees on the history of the Israel-Palestine war pic.twitter.com/sj6k0T2Xuo — Louise Adler (@louiseadler) February 16, 2024 “There’s always been a civil, courteous and polite exchange of views. Yes, sometimes views are expressed with passion – but why are we so frightened of that?” she says. “We have to be able to hear other people, that’s what I think is important. And passion or commitment to one’s opinion is perfectly legitimate.” “The moderators have the power of the microphone, and the right to switch it off during Q&As if an audience member becomes offensive, racist or derogatory,” she says. “It can be done with dignity and authority.” ‘The more you mediate this, the less you fulfil the brief’ Before he was editor of the Monthly, Michael Williams was artistic director of Sydney writers’ festival, and head programmer for the Wheeler Centre. He’s a frequent moderator of panels and talks at writers’ festivals, which he sees as platforms for public discourse where conflicts of opinion are inevitable. ‘Poetic’, ‘fearless’, ‘a creative triumph’: the best Australian books out in February Read more “If you don’t want to be in a place where there’s public protests or anxiety expressed about government policy, or questions being asked about human rights, then you probably shouldn’t be putting on a public ideas festival right now, because that’s what’s going to happen,” he says. “Only the narrowest and most prescriptive program avoids being about the world at large.” View image in fullscreen Kae Tempest talks to Michael Williams at the 2016 Sydney writers’ festival. Photograph: Pru
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Tory MP Lee Anderson claims ‘Islamists’ have got control of Sadiq Khan
0:35 Islamists control Sadiq Khan, claims Tory MP Lee Anderson – video This article is more than 1 year old Tory MP Lee Anderson claims ‘Islamists’ have got control of Sadiq Khan This article is more than 1 year old Ex-deputy party chair says on GB News Islamists control London as well as its mayor, prompting calls for him to lose the whip The Conservative MP Lee Anderson has claimed that “Islamists” have “got control of London” and its mayor, Sadiq Khan. Speaking on GB News, Anderson said of Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London: “He’s given our capital city away to his mates. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London.” The Labour party called for Anderson to lose the Tory whip. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chair, said: “Lee Anderson’s comments are unambiguously racist and Islamophobic. Rishi Sunak needs to immediately remove the whip. If he is too weak, then people will take their own view of the modern Conservative party.” Tan Dhesi, the shadow exports minister, said: “Given the recent spike in Islamophobia and antisemitism, and the febrile atmosphere in our country, it’s deplorable that an elected MP can openly make such incendiary and divisive statements; especially against Sadiq Khan , who has done so much to foster community cohesion and tackle hate crime.” A Conservative source said: “Lee was simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as [police and crime commissioner] for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently.” A report published this week suggested that anti-Muslim hate in the UK has more than tripled in the four months since Hamas’s attacks. Tell Mama, a charity, recorded 2,010 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February, compared with 600 in the same period last year. Rob Blackie, the Liberal Democrats’ mayoral candidate in London, accused Anderson of “spreading dangerous conspiracy theories” and called for him to lose the Tory whip. The Conservative party was contacted and asked whether it planned to take any action against Anderson. Anderson is the Tory MP for Ashfield and was a deputy chair of the Conservative party until mid-January, when he resigned over the vote on the government’s Rwanda deportation policy . In the same GB News appearance on Friday, Anderson suggested politicians should intervene in police operations because they had not cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters. “Ultimately we run the country, and if the police aren’t doing their job – and they’re not doing their job … we need to step in and take over,” Anderson said. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Sadiq Khan London Lee Anderson London mayoral election 2024 news Share Reuse this content 0:35 Islamists control Sadiq Khan, claims Tory MP Lee Anderson – video This article is more than 1 year old Tory MP Lee Anderson claims ‘Islamists’ have got control of Sadiq Khan This article is more than 1 year old Ex-deputy party chair says on GB News Islamists control London as well as its mayor, prompting calls for him to lose the whip The Conservative MP Lee Anderson has claimed that “Islamists” have “got control of London” and its mayor, Sadiq Khan. Speaking on GB News, Anderson said of Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London: “He’s given our capital city away to his mates. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London.” The Labour party called for Anderson to lose the Tory whip. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chair, said: “Lee Anderson’s comments are unambiguously racist and Islamophobic. Rishi Sunak needs to immediately remove the whip. If he is too weak, then people will take their own view of the modern Conservative party.” Tan Dhesi, the shadow exports minister, said: “Given the recent spike in Islamophobia and antisemitism, and the febrile atmosphere in our country, it’s deplorable that an elected MP can openly make such incendiary and divisive statements; especially against Sadiq Khan , who has done so much to foster community cohesion and tackle hate crime.” A Conservative source said: “Lee was simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as [police and crime commissioner] for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently.” A report published this week suggested that anti-Muslim hate in the UK has more than tripled in the four months since Hamas’s attacks. Tell Mama, a charity, recorded 2,010 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February, compared with 600 in the same period last year. Rob Blackie, the Liberal Democrats’ mayoral candidate in London, accused Anderson of “spreading dangerous conspiracy theories” and called for him to lose the Tory whip. The Conservative party was contacted and asked whether it planned to take any action against Anderson. Anderson is the Tory MP for Ashfield and was a deputy chair of the Conservative party until mid-January, when he resigned over the vote on the government’s Rwanda deportation policy . In the same GB News appearance on Friday, Anderson suggested politicians should intervene in police operations because they had not cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters. “Ultimately we run the country, and if the police aren’t doing their job – and they’re not doing their job … we need to step in and take over,” Anderson said. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Sadiq Khan London Lee Anderson London mayoral election 2024 news Share Reuse this content 0:35 Islamists control Sadiq Khan, claims Tory MP Lee Anderson – video 0:35 Islamists control Sadiq Khan, claims Tory MP Lee Anderson – video 0:35 Islamists control Sadiq Khan, claims Tory MP Lee Anderson – video 0:35 Islamists control Sadiq Khan, claims Tory MP Lee Anderson – video This article is more than 1 year old Tory MP Lee Anderson claims ‘Islamists’ have got control of Sadiq Khan This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tory MP Lee Anderson claims ‘Islamists’ have got control of Sadiq Khan This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tory MP Lee Anderson claims ‘Islamists’ have got control of Sadiq Khan This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Ex-deputy party chair says on GB News Islamists control London as well as its mayor, prompting calls for him to lose the whip Ex-deputy party chair says on GB News Islamists control London as well as its mayor, prompting calls for him to lose the whip Ex-deputy party chair says on GB News Islamists control London as well as its mayor, prompting calls for him to lose the whip The Conservative MP Lee Anderson has claimed that “Islamists” have “got control of London” and its mayor, Sadiq Khan. Speaking on GB News, Anderson said of Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London: “He’s given our capital city away to his mates. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London.” The Labour party called for Anderson to lose the Tory whip. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chair, said: “Lee Anderson’s comments are unambiguously racist and Islamophobic. Rishi Sunak needs to immediately remove the whip. If he is too weak, then people will take their own view of the modern Conservative party.” Tan Dhesi, the shadow exports minister, said: “Given the recent spike in Islamophobia and antisemitism, and the febrile atmosphere in our country, it’s deplorable that an elected MP can openly make such incendiary and divisive statements; especially against Sadiq Khan , who has done so much to foster community cohesion and tackle hate crime.” A Conservative source said: “Lee was simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as [police and crime commissioner] for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently.” A report published this week suggested that anti-Muslim hate in the UK has more than tripled in the four months since Hamas’s attacks. Tell Mama, a charity, recorded 2,010 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February, compared with 600 in the same period last year. Rob Blackie, the Liberal Democrats’ mayoral candidate in London, accused Anderson of “spreading dangerous conspiracy theories” and called for him to lose the Tory whip. The Conservative party was contacted and asked whether it planned to take any action against Anderson. Anderson is the Tory MP for Ashfield and was a deputy chair of the Conservative party until mid-January, when he resigned over the vote on the government’s Rwanda deportation policy . In the same GB News appearance on Friday, Anderson suggested politicians should intervene in police operations because they had not cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters. “Ultimately we run the country, and if the police aren’t doing their job – and they’re not doing their job … we need to step in and take over,” Anderson said. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Sadiq Khan London Lee Anderson London mayoral election 2024 news Share Reuse this content The Conservative MP Lee Anderson has claimed that “Islamists” have “got control of London” and its mayor, Sadiq Khan. Speaking on GB News, Anderson said of Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London: “He’s given our capital city away to his mates. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London.” The Labour party called for Anderson to lose the Tory whip. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chair, said: “Lee Anderson’s comments are unambiguously racist and Islamophobic. Rishi Sunak needs to immediately remove the whip. If he is too weak, then people will take their own view of the modern Conservative party.” Tan Dhesi, the shadow exports minister, said: “Given the recent spike in Islamophobia and antisemitism, and the febrile atmosphere in our country, it’s deplorable that an elected MP can openly make such incendiary and divisive statements; especially against Sadiq Khan , who has done so much to foster community cohesion and tackle hate crime.” A Conservative source said: “Lee was simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as [police and crime commissioner] for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently.” A report published this week suggested that anti-Muslim hate in the UK has more than tripled in the four months since Hamas’s attacks. Tell Mama, a charity, recorded 2,010 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February, compared with 600 in the same period last year. Rob Blackie, the Liberal Democrats’ mayoral candidate in London, accused Anderson of “spreading dangerous conspiracy theories” and called for him to lose the Tory whip. The Conservative party was contacted and asked whether it planned to take any action against Anderson. Anderson is the Tory MP for Ashfield and was a deputy chair of the Conservative party until mid-January, when he resigned over the vote on the government’s Rwanda deportation policy . In the same GB News appearance on Friday, Anderson suggested politicians should intervene in police operations because they had not cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters. “Ultimately we run the country, and if the police aren’t doing their job – and they’re not doing their job … we need to step in and take over,” Anderson said. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Sadiq Khan London Lee Anderson London mayoral election 2024 news Share Reuse this content The Conservative MP Lee Anderson has claimed that “Islamists” have “got control of London” and its mayor, Sadiq Khan. Speaking on GB News, Anderson said of Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London: “He’s given our capital city away to his mates. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London.” The Labour party called for Anderson to lose the Tory whip. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chair, said: “Lee Anderson’s comments are unambiguously racist and Islamophobic. Rishi Sunak needs to immediately remove the whip. If he is too weak, then people will take their own view of the modern Conservative party.” Tan Dhesi, the shadow exports minister, said: “Given the recent spike in Islamophobia and antisemitism, and the febrile atmosphere in our country, it’s deplorable that an elected MP can openly make such incendiary and divisive statements; especially against Sadiq Khan , who has done so much to foster community cohesion and tackle hate crime.” A Conservative source said: “Lee was simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as [police and crime commissioner] for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently.” A report published this week suggested that anti-Muslim hate in the UK has more than tripled in the four months since Hamas’s attacks. Tell Mama, a charity, recorded 2,010 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February, compared with 600 in the same period last year. Rob Blackie, the Liberal Democrats’ mayoral candidate in London, accused Anderson of “spreading dangerous conspiracy theories” and called for him to lose the Tory whip. The Conservative party was contacted and asked whether it planned to take any action against Anderson. Anderson is the Tory MP for Ashfield and was a deputy chair of the Conservative party until mid-January, when he resigned over the vote on the government’s Rwanda deportation policy . In the same GB News appearance on Friday, Anderson suggested politicians should intervene in police operations because they had not cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters. “Ultimately we run the country, and if the police aren’t doing their job – and they’re not doing their job … we need to step in and take over,” Anderson said. The Conservative MP Lee Anderson has claimed that “Islamists” have “got control of London” and its mayor, Sadiq Khan. Speaking on GB News, Anderson said of Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London: “He’s given our capital city away to his mates. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London.” The Labour party called for Anderson to lose the Tory whip. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chair, said: “Lee Anderson’s comments are unambiguously racist and Islamophobic. Rishi Sunak needs to immediately remove the whip. If he is too weak, then people will take their own view of the modern Conservative party.” Tan Dhesi, the shadow exports minister, said: “Given the recent spike in Islamophobia and antisemitism, and the febrile atmosphere in our country, it’s deplorable that an elected MP can openly make such incendiary and divisive statements; especially against Sadiq Khan , who has done so much to foster community cohesion and tackle hate crime.” A Conservative source said: “Lee was simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as [police and crime commissioner] for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently.” A report published this week suggested that anti-Muslim hate in the UK has more than tripled in the four months since Hamas’s attacks. Tell Mama, a charity, recorded 2,010 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February, compared with 600 in the same period last year. Rob Blackie, the Liberal Democrats’ mayoral candidate in London, accused Anderson of “spreading dangerous conspiracy theories” and called for him to lose the Tory whip. The Conservative party was contacted and asked whether it planned to take any action against Anderson. Anderson is the Tory MP for Ashfield and was a deputy chair of the Conservative party until mid-January, when he resigned over the vote on the government’s Rwanda deportation policy . In the same GB News appearance on Friday, Anderson suggested politicians should intervene in police operations because they had not cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters. “Ultimately we run the country, and if the police aren’t doing their job – and they’re not doing their job … we need to step in and take over,” Anderson said. The Conservative MP Lee Anderson has claimed that “Islamists” have “got control of London” and its mayor, Sadiq Khan. Speaking on GB News, Anderson said of Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London: “He’s given our capital city away to his mates. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London.” The Labour party called for Anderson to lose the Tory whip. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour chair, said: “Lee Anderson’s comments are unambiguously racist and Islamophobic. Rishi Sunak needs to immediately remove the whip. If he is too weak, then people will take their own view of the modern Conservative party.” Tan Dhesi, the shadow exports minister, said: “Given the recent spike in Islamophobia and antisemitism, and the febrile atmosphere in our country, it’s deplorable that an elected MP can openly make such incendiary and divisive statements; especially against Sadiq Khan , who has done so much to foster community cohesion and tackle hate crime.” A Conservative source said: “Lee was simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as [police and crime commissioner] for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently.” A report published this week suggested that anti-Muslim hate in the UK has more than tripled in the four months since Hamas’s attacks. Tell Mama, a charity, recorded 2,010 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February, compared with 600 in the same period last year. Rob Blackie, the Liberal Democrats’ mayoral candidate in London, accused Anderson of “spreading dangerous conspiracy theories” and called for him to lose the Tory whip. The Conservative party was contacted and asked whether it planned to take any action against Anderson. Anderson is the Tory MP for Ashfield and was a deputy chair of the Conservative party until mid-January, when he resigned over the vote on the government’s Rwanda deportation policy . In the same GB News appearance on Friday, Anderson suggested politicians should intervene in police operations because they had not cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters. “Ultimately we run the country, and if the police aren’t doing their job – and they’re not doing their job … we need to step in and take over,” Anderson said. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Sadiq Khan London Lee Anderson London mayoral election 2024 news Share Reuse this content Conservatives Sadiq Khan London Lee Anderson London mayoral election 2024 news |
Colombia vows to put nature at the heart of global environmental negotiations
Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP This article is more than 1 year old Colombia vows to put nature at the heart of global environmental negotiations This article is more than 1 year old The environment minister Susana Muhamad says nature is a ‘pillar’ of fighting the climate crisis The next round of global biodiversity negotiations will put nature at the heart of the international environment agenda, Colombia’s environment minister has said, as the country prepares for the Cop16 summit. Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, who is expected to be the Cop16 president, said the South American country would use the summit to ensure nature was a key part of the global environmental agenda in the year building up to the climate Cop30 in the Brazilian Amazon in 2025 , where countries will present new plans on how they will meet the Paris agreement. “Although the climate is affecting biodiversity, nature is an answer to the climate crisis. It is not the only answer but it is a very important pillar and we want to position it very strongly to build towards Cop30 in Brazil,” Muhamad told the Guardian. “We need to create the momentum and the role of Cop16 is to make nature a pillar of those discussions,” she said. “I think sometimes we divide the international environmental agenda into many issues … [but] we need to concentrate. For example, saving the Amazon is a practical and tangible action. The creation of multinational marine protected areas is a tangible action that has results for the climate and biodiversity.” Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, has named Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October – the first biodiversity summit since a historic UN deal was made to halt the rampant loss of biodiversity, in Montreal, Canada at the end of 2022. View image in fullscreen The Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, announced Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October. Photograph: Cop16 Governments heading to Cali, about 50 miles from Colombia’s Pacific coast, are expected to present national-level plans to meet the biodiversity targets, which include commitments to protect 30% of land and sea for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems. Muhamad said will use the summit to try to negotiate stronger recognition and finance for megadiverse countries, which are home to a disproportionate amount of life on Earth. Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? Read more The crisis in the natural world will feature heavily on the international stage in 2024: from Brazil’s G20 presidency, which President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will use to focus on developing economic models to protect the Amazon, to the climate Cop29 in Azerbaijan. Colombia has become a leading environmental voice on the global stage. At Cop28 in Dubai last year , the leftwing Petro announced that Colombia would back calls for a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty, becoming the first large fossil fuel producer to do so. Petro said his country’s biodiversity would become the basis of its economic strength after the green transition. David Cooper, the acting executive secretary for the UN convention on biological diversity, said Colombia would be an inspiring host for Cop16 and bring welcome leadership on the environment. He said Cop16 would be important for the implementation of this decade’s biodiversity targets, but added that he was concerned about farmers’ protests against environmental policies, and how they could affect countries’ commitments in the future. “Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems are so fundamental to food and agriculture, yet we’re not managing to maintain a common interest,” he said. “We’ve got major challenges. Political leaders really need to step up.” Find more age of extinction coverage here , and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on X for all the latest news and features Explore more on these topics Biodiversity The age of extinction Conservation Wildlife Colombia Americas United Nations Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP This article is more than 1 year old Colombia vows to put nature at the heart of global environmental negotiations This article is more than 1 year old The environment minister Susana Muhamad says nature is a ‘pillar’ of fighting the climate crisis The next round of global biodiversity negotiations will put nature at the heart of the international environment agenda, Colombia’s environment minister has said, as the country prepares for the Cop16 summit. Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, who is expected to be the Cop16 president, said the South American country would use the summit to ensure nature was a key part of the global environmental agenda in the year building up to the climate Cop30 in the Brazilian Amazon in 2025 , where countries will present new plans on how they will meet the Paris agreement. “Although the climate is affecting biodiversity, nature is an answer to the climate crisis. It is not the only answer but it is a very important pillar and we want to position it very strongly to build towards Cop30 in Brazil,” Muhamad told the Guardian. “We need to create the momentum and the role of Cop16 is to make nature a pillar of those discussions,” she said. “I think sometimes we divide the international environmental agenda into many issues … [but] we need to concentrate. For example, saving the Amazon is a practical and tangible action. The creation of multinational marine protected areas is a tangible action that has results for the climate and biodiversity.” Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, has named Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October – the first biodiversity summit since a historic UN deal was made to halt the rampant loss of biodiversity, in Montreal, Canada at the end of 2022. View image in fullscreen The Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, announced Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October. Photograph: Cop16 Governments heading to Cali, about 50 miles from Colombia’s Pacific coast, are expected to present national-level plans to meet the biodiversity targets, which include commitments to protect 30% of land and sea for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems. Muhamad said will use the summit to try to negotiate stronger recognition and finance for megadiverse countries, which are home to a disproportionate amount of life on Earth. Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? Read more The crisis in the natural world will feature heavily on the international stage in 2024: from Brazil’s G20 presidency, which President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will use to focus on developing economic models to protect the Amazon, to the climate Cop29 in Azerbaijan. Colombia has become a leading environmental voice on the global stage. At Cop28 in Dubai last year , the leftwing Petro announced that Colombia would back calls for a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty, becoming the first large fossil fuel producer to do so. Petro said his country’s biodiversity would become the basis of its economic strength after the green transition. David Cooper, the acting executive secretary for the UN convention on biological diversity, said Colombia would be an inspiring host for Cop16 and bring welcome leadership on the environment. He said Cop16 would be important for the implementation of this decade’s biodiversity targets, but added that he was concerned about farmers’ protests against environmental policies, and how they could affect countries’ commitments in the future. “Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems are so fundamental to food and agriculture, yet we’re not managing to maintain a common interest,” he said. “We’ve got major challenges. Political leaders really need to step up.” Find more age of extinction coverage here , and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on X for all the latest news and features Explore more on these topics Biodiversity The age of extinction Conservation Wildlife Colombia Americas United Nations Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, is expected to be the president of Cop16. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP This article is more than 1 year old Colombia vows to put nature at the heart of global environmental negotiations This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Colombia vows to put nature at the heart of global environmental negotiations This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Colombia vows to put nature at the heart of global environmental negotiations This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The environment minister Susana Muhamad says nature is a ‘pillar’ of fighting the climate crisis The environment minister Susana Muhamad says nature is a ‘pillar’ of fighting the climate crisis The environment minister Susana Muhamad says nature is a ‘pillar’ of fighting the climate crisis The next round of global biodiversity negotiations will put nature at the heart of the international environment agenda, Colombia’s environment minister has said, as the country prepares for the Cop16 summit. Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, who is expected to be the Cop16 president, said the South American country would use the summit to ensure nature was a key part of the global environmental agenda in the year building up to the climate Cop30 in the Brazilian Amazon in 2025 , where countries will present new plans on how they will meet the Paris agreement. “Although the climate is affecting biodiversity, nature is an answer to the climate crisis. It is not the only answer but it is a very important pillar and we want to position it very strongly to build towards Cop30 in Brazil,” Muhamad told the Guardian. “We need to create the momentum and the role of Cop16 is to make nature a pillar of those discussions,” she said. “I think sometimes we divide the international environmental agenda into many issues … [but] we need to concentrate. For example, saving the Amazon is a practical and tangible action. The creation of multinational marine protected areas is a tangible action that has results for the climate and biodiversity.” Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, has named Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October – the first biodiversity summit since a historic UN deal was made to halt the rampant loss of biodiversity, in Montreal, Canada at the end of 2022. View image in fullscreen The Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, announced Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October. Photograph: Cop16 Governments heading to Cali, about 50 miles from Colombia’s Pacific coast, are expected to present national-level plans to meet the biodiversity targets, which include commitments to protect 30% of land and sea for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems. Muhamad said will use the summit to try to negotiate stronger recognition and finance for megadiverse countries, which are home to a disproportionate amount of life on Earth. Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? Read more The crisis in the natural world will feature heavily on the international stage in 2024: from Brazil’s G20 presidency, which President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will use to focus on developing economic models to protect the Amazon, to the climate Cop29 in Azerbaijan. Colombia has become a leading environmental voice on the global stage. At Cop28 in Dubai last year , the leftwing Petro announced that Colombia would back calls for a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty, becoming the first large fossil fuel producer to do so. Petro said his country’s biodiversity would become the basis of its economic strength after the green transition. David Cooper, the acting executive secretary for the UN convention on biological diversity, said Colombia would be an inspiring host for Cop16 and bring welcome leadership on the environment. He said Cop16 would be important for the implementation of this decade’s biodiversity targets, but added that he was concerned about farmers’ protests against environmental policies, and how they could affect countries’ commitments in the future. “Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems are so fundamental to food and agriculture, yet we’re not managing to maintain a common interest,” he said. “We’ve got major challenges. Political leaders really need to step up.” Find more age of extinction coverage here , and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on X for all the latest news and features Explore more on these topics Biodiversity The age of extinction Conservation Wildlife Colombia Americas United Nations Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content The next round of global biodiversity negotiations will put nature at the heart of the international environment agenda, Colombia’s environment minister has said, as the country prepares for the Cop16 summit. Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, who is expected to be the Cop16 president, said the South American country would use the summit to ensure nature was a key part of the global environmental agenda in the year building up to the climate Cop30 in the Brazilian Amazon in 2025 , where countries will present new plans on how they will meet the Paris agreement. “Although the climate is affecting biodiversity, nature is an answer to the climate crisis. It is not the only answer but it is a very important pillar and we want to position it very strongly to build towards Cop30 in Brazil,” Muhamad told the Guardian. “We need to create the momentum and the role of Cop16 is to make nature a pillar of those discussions,” she said. “I think sometimes we divide the international environmental agenda into many issues … [but] we need to concentrate. For example, saving the Amazon is a practical and tangible action. The creation of multinational marine protected areas is a tangible action that has results for the climate and biodiversity.” Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, has named Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October – the first biodiversity summit since a historic UN deal was made to halt the rampant loss of biodiversity, in Montreal, Canada at the end of 2022. View image in fullscreen The Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, announced Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October. Photograph: Cop16 Governments heading to Cali, about 50 miles from Colombia’s Pacific coast, are expected to present national-level plans to meet the biodiversity targets, which include commitments to protect 30% of land and sea for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems. Muhamad said will use the summit to try to negotiate stronger recognition and finance for megadiverse countries, which are home to a disproportionate amount of life on Earth. Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? Read more The crisis in the natural world will feature heavily on the international stage in 2024: from Brazil’s G20 presidency, which President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will use to focus on developing economic models to protect the Amazon, to the climate Cop29 in Azerbaijan. Colombia has become a leading environmental voice on the global stage. At Cop28 in Dubai last year , the leftwing Petro announced that Colombia would back calls for a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty, becoming the first large fossil fuel producer to do so. Petro said his country’s biodiversity would become the basis of its economic strength after the green transition. David Cooper, the acting executive secretary for the UN convention on biological diversity, said Colombia would be an inspiring host for Cop16 and bring welcome leadership on the environment. He said Cop16 would be important for the implementation of this decade’s biodiversity targets, but added that he was concerned about farmers’ protests against environmental policies, and how they could affect countries’ commitments in the future. “Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems are so fundamental to food and agriculture, yet we’re not managing to maintain a common interest,” he said. “We’ve got major challenges. Political leaders really need to step up.” Find more age of extinction coverage here , and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on X for all the latest news and features Explore more on these topics Biodiversity The age of extinction Conservation Wildlife Colombia Americas United Nations Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content The next round of global biodiversity negotiations will put nature at the heart of the international environment agenda, Colombia’s environment minister has said, as the country prepares for the Cop16 summit. Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, who is expected to be the Cop16 president, said the South American country would use the summit to ensure nature was a key part of the global environmental agenda in the year building up to the climate Cop30 in the Brazilian Amazon in 2025 , where countries will present new plans on how they will meet the Paris agreement. “Although the climate is affecting biodiversity, nature is an answer to the climate crisis. It is not the only answer but it is a very important pillar and we want to position it very strongly to build towards Cop30 in Brazil,” Muhamad told the Guardian. “We need to create the momentum and the role of Cop16 is to make nature a pillar of those discussions,” she said. “I think sometimes we divide the international environmental agenda into many issues … [but] we need to concentrate. For example, saving the Amazon is a practical and tangible action. The creation of multinational marine protected areas is a tangible action that has results for the climate and biodiversity.” Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, has named Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October – the first biodiversity summit since a historic UN deal was made to halt the rampant loss of biodiversity, in Montreal, Canada at the end of 2022. View image in fullscreen The Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, announced Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October. Photograph: Cop16 Governments heading to Cali, about 50 miles from Colombia’s Pacific coast, are expected to present national-level plans to meet the biodiversity targets, which include commitments to protect 30% of land and sea for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems. Muhamad said will use the summit to try to negotiate stronger recognition and finance for megadiverse countries, which are home to a disproportionate amount of life on Earth. Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? Read more The crisis in the natural world will feature heavily on the international stage in 2024: from Brazil’s G20 presidency, which President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will use to focus on developing economic models to protect the Amazon, to the climate Cop29 in Azerbaijan. Colombia has become a leading environmental voice on the global stage. At Cop28 in Dubai last year , the leftwing Petro announced that Colombia would back calls for a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty, becoming the first large fossil fuel producer to do so. Petro said his country’s biodiversity would become the basis of its economic strength after the green transition. David Cooper, the acting executive secretary for the UN convention on biological diversity, said Colombia would be an inspiring host for Cop16 and bring welcome leadership on the environment. He said Cop16 would be important for the implementation of this decade’s biodiversity targets, but added that he was concerned about farmers’ protests against environmental policies, and how they could affect countries’ commitments in the future. “Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems are so fundamental to food and agriculture, yet we’re not managing to maintain a common interest,” he said. “We’ve got major challenges. Political leaders really need to step up.” Find more age of extinction coverage here , and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on X for all the latest news and features The next round of global biodiversity negotiations will put nature at the heart of the international environment agenda, Colombia’s environment minister has said, as the country prepares for the Cop16 summit. Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, who is expected to be the Cop16 president, said the South American country would use the summit to ensure nature was a key part of the global environmental agenda in the year building up to the climate Cop30 in the Brazilian Amazon in 2025 , where countries will present new plans on how they will meet the Paris agreement. “Although the climate is affecting biodiversity, nature is an answer to the climate crisis. It is not the only answer but it is a very important pillar and we want to position it very strongly to build towards Cop30 in Brazil,” Muhamad told the Guardian. “We need to create the momentum and the role of Cop16 is to make nature a pillar of those discussions,” she said. “I think sometimes we divide the international environmental agenda into many issues … [but] we need to concentrate. For example, saving the Amazon is a practical and tangible action. The creation of multinational marine protected areas is a tangible action that has results for the climate and biodiversity.” Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, has named Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October – the first biodiversity summit since a historic UN deal was made to halt the rampant loss of biodiversity, in Montreal, Canada at the end of 2022. View image in fullscreen The Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, announced Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October. Photograph: Cop16 Governments heading to Cali, about 50 miles from Colombia’s Pacific coast, are expected to present national-level plans to meet the biodiversity targets, which include commitments to protect 30% of land and sea for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems. Muhamad said will use the summit to try to negotiate stronger recognition and finance for megadiverse countries, which are home to a disproportionate amount of life on Earth. Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? Read more The crisis in the natural world will feature heavily on the international stage in 2024: from Brazil’s G20 presidency, which President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will use to focus on developing economic models to protect the Amazon, to the climate Cop29 in Azerbaijan. Colombia has become a leading environmental voice on the global stage. At Cop28 in Dubai last year , the leftwing Petro announced that Colombia would back calls for a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty, becoming the first large fossil fuel producer to do so. Petro said his country’s biodiversity would become the basis of its economic strength after the green transition. David Cooper, the acting executive secretary for the UN convention on biological diversity, said Colombia would be an inspiring host for Cop16 and bring welcome leadership on the environment. He said Cop16 would be important for the implementation of this decade’s biodiversity targets, but added that he was concerned about farmers’ protests against environmental policies, and how they could affect countries’ commitments in the future. “Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems are so fundamental to food and agriculture, yet we’re not managing to maintain a common interest,” he said. “We’ve got major challenges. Political leaders really need to step up.” Find more age of extinction coverage here , and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on X for all the latest news and features The next round of global biodiversity negotiations will put nature at the heart of the international environment agenda, Colombia’s environment minister has said, as the country prepares for the Cop16 summit. Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister, who is expected to be the Cop16 president, said the South American country would use the summit to ensure nature was a key part of the global environmental agenda in the year building up to the climate Cop30 in the Brazilian Amazon in 2025 , where countries will present new plans on how they will meet the Paris agreement. “Although the climate is affecting biodiversity, nature is an answer to the climate crisis. It is not the only answer but it is a very important pillar and we want to position it very strongly to build towards Cop30 in Brazil,” Muhamad told the Guardian. “We need to create the momentum and the role of Cop16 is to make nature a pillar of those discussions,” she said. “I think sometimes we divide the international environmental agenda into many issues … [but] we need to concentrate. For example, saving the Amazon is a practical and tangible action. The creation of multinational marine protected areas is a tangible action that has results for the climate and biodiversity.” Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, has named Cali as the host city for Cop16 in October – the first biodiversity summit since a historic UN deal was made to halt the rampant loss of biodiversity, in Montreal, Canada at the end of 2022. Governments heading to Cali, about 50 miles from Colombia’s Pacific coast, are expected to present national-level plans to meet the biodiversity targets, which include commitments to protect 30% of land and sea for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems. Muhamad said will use the summit to try to negotiate stronger recognition and finance for megadiverse countries, which are home to a disproportionate amount of life on Earth. Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? Read more Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? Read more Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? Read more Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? Beyond Montreal: a year on has the world lived up to the promises made at nature summit? The crisis in the natural world will feature heavily on the international stage in 2024: from Brazil’s G20 presidency, which President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will use to focus on developing economic models to protect the Amazon, to the climate Cop29 in Azerbaijan. Colombia has become a leading environmental voice on the global stage. At Cop28 in Dubai last year , the leftwing Petro announced that Colombia would back calls for a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty, becoming the first large fossil fuel producer to do so. Petro said his country’s biodiversity would become the basis of its economic strength after the green transition. David Cooper, the acting executive secretary for the UN convention on biological diversity, said Colombia would be an inspiring host for Cop16 and bring welcome leadership on the environment. He said Cop16 would be important for the implementation of this decade’s biodiversity targets, but added that he was concerned about farmers’ protests against environmental policies, and how they could affect countries’ commitments in the future. “Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems are so fundamental to food and agriculture, yet we’re not managing to maintain a common interest,” he said. “We’ve got major challenges. Political leaders really need to step up.” Find more age of extinction coverage here , and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on X for all the latest news and features Explore more on these topics Biodiversity The age of extinction Conservation Wildlife Colombia Americas United Nations Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Biodiversity The age of extinction Conservation Wildlife Colombia Americas United Nations Climate crisis news |
MP Bob Stewart wins appeal against racial abuse conviction
Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA This article is more than 1 year old MP Bob Stewart wins appeal against racial abuse conviction This article is more than 1 year old MP who surrendered Tory whip while he appealed had told activist to to ‘go back to Bahrain’ The politician Bob Stewart has had his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence quashed. The MP for Beckenham, who surrendered the Conservative whip last November while he appealed, had his conviction overturned at Southwark crown court on Friday. Stewart, 74, was convicted in November after telling an activist to “go back to Bahrain” during an argument outside the Foreign Office’s Lancaster House in December 2022. He had been attending an event hosted by the Bahraini embassy when the protester, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei , shouted: “Bob Stewart, for how much did you sell yourself to the Bahraini regime?” During a heated exchange, Stewart replied: “Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain .” He also told Alwadaei to “get stuffed, Bahrain’s a great place, end of”. Alwadaei told the court he felt “dehumanised” after Stewart told him to “go back to Bahrain”. But the judge found that while Stewart’s comments towards Alwadaei had amounted to abuse, they did not cause alarm or distress. Making the ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Joel Bennathan said: “The fact that even after Mr Stewart’s abusive comments, Mr Alwadaei continued to address him in similar terms and at a similar pitch would scarcely suggest to an observer that he was caused any upset, alarm or distress.” He acknowledged that Alwadaei felt that the comments were racist, but said: “The feelings of the person against which the abusive comments are directed are not determinative but not irrelevant.” Earlier, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the first female lord justice of appeal, gave a character reference for Stewart in court. She said: “He’s very kind, very generous. He has a somewhat flippanty, offhand manner, which sometimes people find rather difficult, but I actually find quite funny. I’ve never heard him be unkind to anyone. I’ve never heard him be racist.” The court heard that Alwadaei came to the UK from Bahrain as a refugee after he was tortured for attending a protest against the regime. Alwadaei said he wanted to question Stewart about his support for Bahrain. “Those that would affiliate themselves with a regime that is so corrupt, they should be questioned for their affiliation,” he said. Stewart is a former British army officer who was stationed in Bahrain in 1969 and has described himself as a “friend” of the Middle Eastern country. He denied that his comments were racist, and claimed he meant Alwadaei could protest safely if he were to return to Bahrain. “[I said] go back to Bahrain because I know it to be a very decent place and I thought you would get a decent hearing there,” he told the court. He said he was “upset” by Alwadaei’s remarks because they made him feel “that I was a corrupt man and that I had accepted money from Bahrain … I had not. I was upset by this.” He added that when he said “I hate you” he meant “I hate what you are saying”. Explore more on these topics Politics Conservatives Race Bahrain news Share Reuse this content Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA This article is more than 1 year old MP Bob Stewart wins appeal against racial abuse conviction This article is more than 1 year old MP who surrendered Tory whip while he appealed had told activist to to ‘go back to Bahrain’ The politician Bob Stewart has had his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence quashed. The MP for Beckenham, who surrendered the Conservative whip last November while he appealed, had his conviction overturned at Southwark crown court on Friday. Stewart, 74, was convicted in November after telling an activist to “go back to Bahrain” during an argument outside the Foreign Office’s Lancaster House in December 2022. He had been attending an event hosted by the Bahraini embassy when the protester, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei , shouted: “Bob Stewart, for how much did you sell yourself to the Bahraini regime?” During a heated exchange, Stewart replied: “Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain .” He also told Alwadaei to “get stuffed, Bahrain’s a great place, end of”. Alwadaei told the court he felt “dehumanised” after Stewart told him to “go back to Bahrain”. But the judge found that while Stewart’s comments towards Alwadaei had amounted to abuse, they did not cause alarm or distress. Making the ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Joel Bennathan said: “The fact that even after Mr Stewart’s abusive comments, Mr Alwadaei continued to address him in similar terms and at a similar pitch would scarcely suggest to an observer that he was caused any upset, alarm or distress.” He acknowledged that Alwadaei felt that the comments were racist, but said: “The feelings of the person against which the abusive comments are directed are not determinative but not irrelevant.” Earlier, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the first female lord justice of appeal, gave a character reference for Stewart in court. She said: “He’s very kind, very generous. He has a somewhat flippanty, offhand manner, which sometimes people find rather difficult, but I actually find quite funny. I’ve never heard him be unkind to anyone. I’ve never heard him be racist.” The court heard that Alwadaei came to the UK from Bahrain as a refugee after he was tortured for attending a protest against the regime. Alwadaei said he wanted to question Stewart about his support for Bahrain. “Those that would affiliate themselves with a regime that is so corrupt, they should be questioned for their affiliation,” he said. Stewart is a former British army officer who was stationed in Bahrain in 1969 and has described himself as a “friend” of the Middle Eastern country. He denied that his comments were racist, and claimed he meant Alwadaei could protest safely if he were to return to Bahrain. “[I said] go back to Bahrain because I know it to be a very decent place and I thought you would get a decent hearing there,” he told the court. He said he was “upset” by Alwadaei’s remarks because they made him feel “that I was a corrupt man and that I had accepted money from Bahrain … I had not. I was upset by this.” He added that when he said “I hate you” he meant “I hate what you are saying”. Explore more on these topics Politics Conservatives Race Bahrain news Share Reuse this content Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA Former Tory MP Bob Stewart, 74, speaks outside Southwark crown court after his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence was quashed. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA This article is more than 1 year old MP Bob Stewart wins appeal against racial abuse conviction This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old MP Bob Stewart wins appeal against racial abuse conviction This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old MP Bob Stewart wins appeal against racial abuse conviction This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old MP who surrendered Tory whip while he appealed had told activist to to ‘go back to Bahrain’ MP who surrendered Tory whip while he appealed had told activist to to ‘go back to Bahrain’ MP who surrendered Tory whip while he appealed had told activist to to ‘go back to Bahrain’ The politician Bob Stewart has had his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence quashed. The MP for Beckenham, who surrendered the Conservative whip last November while he appealed, had his conviction overturned at Southwark crown court on Friday. Stewart, 74, was convicted in November after telling an activist to “go back to Bahrain” during an argument outside the Foreign Office’s Lancaster House in December 2022. He had been attending an event hosted by the Bahraini embassy when the protester, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei , shouted: “Bob Stewart, for how much did you sell yourself to the Bahraini regime?” During a heated exchange, Stewart replied: “Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain .” He also told Alwadaei to “get stuffed, Bahrain’s a great place, end of”. Alwadaei told the court he felt “dehumanised” after Stewart told him to “go back to Bahrain”. But the judge found that while Stewart’s comments towards Alwadaei had amounted to abuse, they did not cause alarm or distress. Making the ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Joel Bennathan said: “The fact that even after Mr Stewart’s abusive comments, Mr Alwadaei continued to address him in similar terms and at a similar pitch would scarcely suggest to an observer that he was caused any upset, alarm or distress.” He acknowledged that Alwadaei felt that the comments were racist, but said: “The feelings of the person against which the abusive comments are directed are not determinative but not irrelevant.” Earlier, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the first female lord justice of appeal, gave a character reference for Stewart in court. She said: “He’s very kind, very generous. He has a somewhat flippanty, offhand manner, which sometimes people find rather difficult, but I actually find quite funny. I’ve never heard him be unkind to anyone. I’ve never heard him be racist.” The court heard that Alwadaei came to the UK from Bahrain as a refugee after he was tortured for attending a protest against the regime. Alwadaei said he wanted to question Stewart about his support for Bahrain. “Those that would affiliate themselves with a regime that is so corrupt, they should be questioned for their affiliation,” he said. Stewart is a former British army officer who was stationed in Bahrain in 1969 and has described himself as a “friend” of the Middle Eastern country. He denied that his comments were racist, and claimed he meant Alwadaei could protest safely if he were to return to Bahrain. “[I said] go back to Bahrain because I know it to be a very decent place and I thought you would get a decent hearing there,” he told the court. He said he was “upset” by Alwadaei’s remarks because they made him feel “that I was a corrupt man and that I had accepted money from Bahrain … I had not. I was upset by this.” He added that when he said “I hate you” he meant “I hate what you are saying”. Explore more on these topics Politics Conservatives Race Bahrain news Share Reuse this content The politician Bob Stewart has had his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence quashed. The MP for Beckenham, who surrendered the Conservative whip last November while he appealed, had his conviction overturned at Southwark crown court on Friday. Stewart, 74, was convicted in November after telling an activist to “go back to Bahrain” during an argument outside the Foreign Office’s Lancaster House in December 2022. He had been attending an event hosted by the Bahraini embassy when the protester, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei , shouted: “Bob Stewart, for how much did you sell yourself to the Bahraini regime?” During a heated exchange, Stewart replied: “Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain .” He also told Alwadaei to “get stuffed, Bahrain’s a great place, end of”. Alwadaei told the court he felt “dehumanised” after Stewart told him to “go back to Bahrain”. But the judge found that while Stewart’s comments towards Alwadaei had amounted to abuse, they did not cause alarm or distress. Making the ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Joel Bennathan said: “The fact that even after Mr Stewart’s abusive comments, Mr Alwadaei continued to address him in similar terms and at a similar pitch would scarcely suggest to an observer that he was caused any upset, alarm or distress.” He acknowledged that Alwadaei felt that the comments were racist, but said: “The feelings of the person against which the abusive comments are directed are not determinative but not irrelevant.” Earlier, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the first female lord justice of appeal, gave a character reference for Stewart in court. She said: “He’s very kind, very generous. He has a somewhat flippanty, offhand manner, which sometimes people find rather difficult, but I actually find quite funny. I’ve never heard him be unkind to anyone. I’ve never heard him be racist.” The court heard that Alwadaei came to the UK from Bahrain as a refugee after he was tortured for attending a protest against the regime. Alwadaei said he wanted to question Stewart about his support for Bahrain. “Those that would affiliate themselves with a regime that is so corrupt, they should be questioned for their affiliation,” he said. Stewart is a former British army officer who was stationed in Bahrain in 1969 and has described himself as a “friend” of the Middle Eastern country. He denied that his comments were racist, and claimed he meant Alwadaei could protest safely if he were to return to Bahrain. “[I said] go back to Bahrain because I know it to be a very decent place and I thought you would get a decent hearing there,” he told the court. He said he was “upset” by Alwadaei’s remarks because they made him feel “that I was a corrupt man and that I had accepted money from Bahrain … I had not. I was upset by this.” He added that when he said “I hate you” he meant “I hate what you are saying”. Explore more on these topics Politics Conservatives Race Bahrain news Share Reuse this content The politician Bob Stewart has had his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence quashed. The MP for Beckenham, who surrendered the Conservative whip last November while he appealed, had his conviction overturned at Southwark crown court on Friday. Stewart, 74, was convicted in November after telling an activist to “go back to Bahrain” during an argument outside the Foreign Office’s Lancaster House in December 2022. He had been attending an event hosted by the Bahraini embassy when the protester, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei , shouted: “Bob Stewart, for how much did you sell yourself to the Bahraini regime?” During a heated exchange, Stewart replied: “Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain .” He also told Alwadaei to “get stuffed, Bahrain’s a great place, end of”. Alwadaei told the court he felt “dehumanised” after Stewart told him to “go back to Bahrain”. But the judge found that while Stewart’s comments towards Alwadaei had amounted to abuse, they did not cause alarm or distress. Making the ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Joel Bennathan said: “The fact that even after Mr Stewart’s abusive comments, Mr Alwadaei continued to address him in similar terms and at a similar pitch would scarcely suggest to an observer that he was caused any upset, alarm or distress.” He acknowledged that Alwadaei felt that the comments were racist, but said: “The feelings of the person against which the abusive comments are directed are not determinative but not irrelevant.” Earlier, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the first female lord justice of appeal, gave a character reference for Stewart in court. She said: “He’s very kind, very generous. He has a somewhat flippanty, offhand manner, which sometimes people find rather difficult, but I actually find quite funny. I’ve never heard him be unkind to anyone. I’ve never heard him be racist.” The court heard that Alwadaei came to the UK from Bahrain as a refugee after he was tortured for attending a protest against the regime. Alwadaei said he wanted to question Stewart about his support for Bahrain. “Those that would affiliate themselves with a regime that is so corrupt, they should be questioned for their affiliation,” he said. Stewart is a former British army officer who was stationed in Bahrain in 1969 and has described himself as a “friend” of the Middle Eastern country. He denied that his comments were racist, and claimed he meant Alwadaei could protest safely if he were to return to Bahrain. “[I said] go back to Bahrain because I know it to be a very decent place and I thought you would get a decent hearing there,” he told the court. He said he was “upset” by Alwadaei’s remarks because they made him feel “that I was a corrupt man and that I had accepted money from Bahrain … I had not. I was upset by this.” He added that when he said “I hate you” he meant “I hate what you are saying”. The politician Bob Stewart has had his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence quashed. The MP for Beckenham, who surrendered the Conservative whip last November while he appealed, had his conviction overturned at Southwark crown court on Friday. Stewart, 74, was convicted in November after telling an activist to “go back to Bahrain” during an argument outside the Foreign Office’s Lancaster House in December 2022. He had been attending an event hosted by the Bahraini embassy when the protester, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei , shouted: “Bob Stewart, for how much did you sell yourself to the Bahraini regime?” During a heated exchange, Stewart replied: “Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain .” He also told Alwadaei to “get stuffed, Bahrain’s a great place, end of”. Alwadaei told the court he felt “dehumanised” after Stewart told him to “go back to Bahrain”. But the judge found that while Stewart’s comments towards Alwadaei had amounted to abuse, they did not cause alarm or distress. Making the ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Joel Bennathan said: “The fact that even after Mr Stewart’s abusive comments, Mr Alwadaei continued to address him in similar terms and at a similar pitch would scarcely suggest to an observer that he was caused any upset, alarm or distress.” He acknowledged that Alwadaei felt that the comments were racist, but said: “The feelings of the person against which the abusive comments are directed are not determinative but not irrelevant.” Earlier, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the first female lord justice of appeal, gave a character reference for Stewart in court. She said: “He’s very kind, very generous. He has a somewhat flippanty, offhand manner, which sometimes people find rather difficult, but I actually find quite funny. I’ve never heard him be unkind to anyone. I’ve never heard him be racist.” The court heard that Alwadaei came to the UK from Bahrain as a refugee after he was tortured for attending a protest against the regime. Alwadaei said he wanted to question Stewart about his support for Bahrain. “Those that would affiliate themselves with a regime that is so corrupt, they should be questioned for their affiliation,” he said. Stewart is a former British army officer who was stationed in Bahrain in 1969 and has described himself as a “friend” of the Middle Eastern country. He denied that his comments were racist, and claimed he meant Alwadaei could protest safely if he were to return to Bahrain. “[I said] go back to Bahrain because I know it to be a very decent place and I thought you would get a decent hearing there,” he told the court. He said he was “upset” by Alwadaei’s remarks because they made him feel “that I was a corrupt man and that I had accepted money from Bahrain … I had not. I was upset by this.” He added that when he said “I hate you” he meant “I hate what you are saying”. The politician Bob Stewart has had his conviction for a racially aggravated public order offence quashed. The MP for Beckenham, who surrendered the Conservative whip last November while he appealed, had his conviction overturned at Southwark crown court on Friday. Stewart, 74, was convicted in November after telling an activist to “go back to Bahrain” during an argument outside the Foreign Office’s Lancaster House in December 2022. He had been attending an event hosted by the Bahraini embassy when the protester, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei , shouted: “Bob Stewart, for how much did you sell yourself to the Bahraini regime?” During a heated exchange, Stewart replied: “Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain .” He also told Alwadaei to “get stuffed, Bahrain’s a great place, end of”. Alwadaei told the court he felt “dehumanised” after Stewart told him to “go back to Bahrain”. But the judge found that while Stewart’s comments towards Alwadaei had amounted to abuse, they did not cause alarm or distress. Making the ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Joel Bennathan said: “The fact that even after Mr Stewart’s abusive comments, Mr Alwadaei continued to address him in similar terms and at a similar pitch would scarcely suggest to an observer that he was caused any upset, alarm or distress.” He acknowledged that Alwadaei felt that the comments were racist, but said: “The feelings of the person against which the abusive comments are directed are not determinative but not irrelevant.” Earlier, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the first female lord justice of appeal, gave a character reference for Stewart in court. She said: “He’s very kind, very generous. He has a somewhat flippanty, offhand manner, which sometimes people find rather difficult, but I actually find quite funny. I’ve never heard him be unkind to anyone. I’ve never heard him be racist.” The court heard that Alwadaei came to the UK from Bahrain as a refugee after he was tortured for attending a protest against the regime. Alwadaei said he wanted to question Stewart about his support for Bahrain. “Those that would affiliate themselves with a regime that is so corrupt, they should be questioned for their affiliation,” he said. Stewart is a former British army officer who was stationed in Bahrain in 1969 and has described himself as a “friend” of the Middle Eastern country. He denied that his comments were racist, and claimed he meant Alwadaei could protest safely if he were to return to Bahrain. “[I said] go back to Bahrain because I know it to be a very decent place and I thought you would get a decent hearing there,” he told the court. He said he was “upset” by Alwadaei’s remarks because they made him feel “that I was a corrupt man and that I had accepted money from Bahrain … I had not. I was upset by this.” He added that when he said “I hate you” he meant “I hate what you are saying”. Explore more on these topics Politics Conservatives Race Bahrain news Share Reuse this content Politics Conservatives Race Bahrain news |
British MPs fearful of violent attacks as tensions over Gaza war increase threats
Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA View image in fullscreen Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA This article is more than 1 year old British MPs fearful of violent attacks as tensions over Gaza war increase threats This article is more than 1 year old Labour politicians tell of taking extra precautions while support staff say row about speaker has increased risk MPs have spoken about the lengths they are going to to keep safe amid heightened tensions over the war in the Middle East. Some Labour MPs who have been vocal on Israel and Palestine said they were fearful there could be a violent attack on a politician. While the vast majority of people make their views on the conflict known peacefully, MPs and staff said the politically charged atmosphere had brought an increase in abuse and threats. Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, said he felt his life was at risk. He has been subject to death threats and faced protests at his office and constituency surgeries since October. He said Thames Valley police had located the individual behind one death threat and charged them. “Everyone has a legitimate right to protest, but it’s the vitriol and the abuse and death threats which are completely unacceptable,” Dhesi said. “Some people are looking to blame somebody – their MP, councillor, anyone.” Like other MPs, Dhesi has had to take extra security measures since October, and now has a police presence at his constituency surgeries. “This will deter a lot of good people from entering politics simply because they know they have to basically get accustomed to a lot of abuse,” he said. He added that disinformation was making the problem worse. “I fear that someone sooner or later will be very seriously injured, if not killed, based on what people are perceiving to be the truth.” Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Read more Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking who once faced down a challenge in her constituency from the then British National party leader Nick Griffin in 2010, said that since October she had taken extra security precautions, including wearing a panic alarm. “I’m more careful about changing my route walking to the tube station or if I’m coming home,” she said. “I look more carefully around me.” She recalled resolving to go to John Lewis to buy a reading light before realising it was the Saturday of the first big pro-Palestinian march in London. “I just thought, ‘This is crazy Margaret – there will be loads of people in central London’. I didn’t do it,” she said. It was the same day that Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, was mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters as he walked through Victoria station. Hodge said she had seen an increase in threats and abuse, of which her staff bear the brunt. “Anything we think is awful, we go to the police. Some of my Muslim colleagues have been having a much harder time than I have.” A Muslim Labour MP who asked to be kept anonymous said they had received a “very serious death threat” before Christmas for being vocally pro-Palestine. “I live with my young children in my constituency and I hid it from them,” they said. “It’s an incredibly lonely place to be when you are worried about your family but can’t share it with them.” Several MPs argued on Friday that fears of intimidation and abuse should not be used to shut down legitimate protest, nor should pro-Palestine protesters be depicted as a mob. Diane Abbott, a former shadow home secretary, said on X: “I get more abuse and threats than most MPs. But the suggestion that police could close down peaceful demonstrations outside MPs’ offices, town halls and parliament is appalling.” Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, said on the social media platform: “Level of Islamophobia people are displaying currently is sickening. My constituents, family and friends are not Islamists, they do not hate any of these things. They are not a mob, they are just people. No one bullied me (any more than on any issue).” Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, sparked a debate on the intimidation of MPs this week when he broke parliamentary protocol to allow three separate votes on a ceasefire in Gaza. An emotional Hoyle told MPs he had taken his decision, which allowed Labour to dodge a difficult vote and sent the Commons into uproar, because he was fearful of an attack on MPs . “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists. I also don’t want another attack on this house,” he said. Parliamentary staff said Hoyle’s decision had them “in the middle of a storm” and placed them at increased risk. 1:43 Lindsay Hoyle apologises to SNP over Gaza debate but was 'protecting MPs' – video One parliamentary worker said her colleagues had received messages since the ceasefire votes accusing them of being “complicit in genocide”. Another had received voicemail messages saying they had “blood on their hands”. A staff member for an MP said it was “only a matter of time” until “the worst happens”. They said abuse had become normalised and that MPs had a platform to speak out about it, but staff do not have the same ability. A fourth parliamentary worker said Hoyle had created more risk for staff because of the perception that the Commons was undermining debate about Gaza. “Instead our safety is being used to defend decisions to undermine these debates, which then makes us a greater target,” they said. Explore more on these topics Politics Labour House of Commons Islamophobia Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Margaret Hodge news Share Reuse this content Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA View image in fullscreen Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA This article is more than 1 year old British MPs fearful of violent attacks as tensions over Gaza war increase threats This article is more than 1 year old Labour politicians tell of taking extra precautions while support staff say row about speaker has increased risk MPs have spoken about the lengths they are going to to keep safe amid heightened tensions over the war in the Middle East. Some Labour MPs who have been vocal on Israel and Palestine said they were fearful there could be a violent attack on a politician. While the vast majority of people make their views on the conflict known peacefully, MPs and staff said the politically charged atmosphere had brought an increase in abuse and threats. Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, said he felt his life was at risk. He has been subject to death threats and faced protests at his office and constituency surgeries since October. He said Thames Valley police had located the individual behind one death threat and charged them. “Everyone has a legitimate right to protest, but it’s the vitriol and the abuse and death threats which are completely unacceptable,” Dhesi said. “Some people are looking to blame somebody – their MP, councillor, anyone.” Like other MPs, Dhesi has had to take extra security measures since October, and now has a police presence at his constituency surgeries. “This will deter a lot of good people from entering politics simply because they know they have to basically get accustomed to a lot of abuse,” he said. He added that disinformation was making the problem worse. “I fear that someone sooner or later will be very seriously injured, if not killed, based on what people are perceiving to be the truth.” Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Read more Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking who once faced down a challenge in her constituency from the then British National party leader Nick Griffin in 2010, said that since October she had taken extra security precautions, including wearing a panic alarm. “I’m more careful about changing my route walking to the tube station or if I’m coming home,” she said. “I look more carefully around me.” She recalled resolving to go to John Lewis to buy a reading light before realising it was the Saturday of the first big pro-Palestinian march in London. “I just thought, ‘This is crazy Margaret – there will be loads of people in central London’. I didn’t do it,” she said. It was the same day that Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, was mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters as he walked through Victoria station. Hodge said she had seen an increase in threats and abuse, of which her staff bear the brunt. “Anything we think is awful, we go to the police. Some of my Muslim colleagues have been having a much harder time than I have.” A Muslim Labour MP who asked to be kept anonymous said they had received a “very serious death threat” before Christmas for being vocally pro-Palestine. “I live with my young children in my constituency and I hid it from them,” they said. “It’s an incredibly lonely place to be when you are worried about your family but can’t share it with them.” Several MPs argued on Friday that fears of intimidation and abuse should not be used to shut down legitimate protest, nor should pro-Palestine protesters be depicted as a mob. Diane Abbott, a former shadow home secretary, said on X: “I get more abuse and threats than most MPs. But the suggestion that police could close down peaceful demonstrations outside MPs’ offices, town halls and parliament is appalling.” Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, said on the social media platform: “Level of Islamophobia people are displaying currently is sickening. My constituents, family and friends are not Islamists, they do not hate any of these things. They are not a mob, they are just people. No one bullied me (any more than on any issue).” Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, sparked a debate on the intimidation of MPs this week when he broke parliamentary protocol to allow three separate votes on a ceasefire in Gaza. An emotional Hoyle told MPs he had taken his decision, which allowed Labour to dodge a difficult vote and sent the Commons into uproar, because he was fearful of an attack on MPs . “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists. I also don’t want another attack on this house,” he said. Parliamentary staff said Hoyle’s decision had them “in the middle of a storm” and placed them at increased risk. 1:43 Lindsay Hoyle apologises to SNP over Gaza debate but was 'protecting MPs' – video One parliamentary worker said her colleagues had received messages since the ceasefire votes accusing them of being “complicit in genocide”. Another had received voicemail messages saying they had “blood on their hands”. A staff member for an MP said it was “only a matter of time” until “the worst happens”. They said abuse had become normalised and that MPs had a platform to speak out about it, but staff do not have the same ability. A fourth parliamentary worker said Hoyle had created more risk for staff because of the perception that the Commons was undermining debate about Gaza. “Instead our safety is being used to defend decisions to undermine these debates, which then makes us a greater target,” they said. Explore more on these topics Politics Labour House of Commons Islamophobia Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Margaret Hodge news Share Reuse this content Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA View image in fullscreen Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA View image in fullscreen Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA View image in fullscreen Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA View image in fullscreen Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA Protesters gathered in Westminster as the House of Commons debated a Gaza ceasefire on Wednesday, but a procedural row concerning the speaker has added to tensions. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA This article is more than 1 year old British MPs fearful of violent attacks as tensions over Gaza war increase threats This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old British MPs fearful of violent attacks as tensions over Gaza war increase threats This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old British MPs fearful of violent attacks as tensions over Gaza war increase threats This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Labour politicians tell of taking extra precautions while support staff say row about speaker has increased risk Labour politicians tell of taking extra precautions while support staff say row about speaker has increased risk Labour politicians tell of taking extra precautions while support staff say row about speaker has increased risk MPs have spoken about the lengths they are going to to keep safe amid heightened tensions over the war in the Middle East. Some Labour MPs who have been vocal on Israel and Palestine said they were fearful there could be a violent attack on a politician. While the vast majority of people make their views on the conflict known peacefully, MPs and staff said the politically charged atmosphere had brought an increase in abuse and threats. Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, said he felt his life was at risk. He has been subject to death threats and faced protests at his office and constituency surgeries since October. He said Thames Valley police had located the individual behind one death threat and charged them. “Everyone has a legitimate right to protest, but it’s the vitriol and the abuse and death threats which are completely unacceptable,” Dhesi said. “Some people are looking to blame somebody – their MP, councillor, anyone.” Like other MPs, Dhesi has had to take extra security measures since October, and now has a police presence at his constituency surgeries. “This will deter a lot of good people from entering politics simply because they know they have to basically get accustomed to a lot of abuse,” he said. He added that disinformation was making the problem worse. “I fear that someone sooner or later will be very seriously injured, if not killed, based on what people are perceiving to be the truth.” Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Read more Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking who once faced down a challenge in her constituency from the then British National party leader Nick Griffin in 2010, said that since October she had taken extra security precautions, including wearing a panic alarm. “I’m more careful about changing my route walking to the tube station or if I’m coming home,” she said. “I look more carefully around me.” She recalled resolving to go to John Lewis to buy a reading light before realising it was the Saturday of the first big pro-Palestinian march in London. “I just thought, ‘This is crazy Margaret – there will be loads of people in central London’. I didn’t do it,” she said. It was the same day that Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, was mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters as he walked through Victoria station. Hodge said she had seen an increase in threats and abuse, of which her staff bear the brunt. “Anything we think is awful, we go to the police. Some of my Muslim colleagues have been having a much harder time than I have.” A Muslim Labour MP who asked to be kept anonymous said they had received a “very serious death threat” before Christmas for being vocally pro-Palestine. “I live with my young children in my constituency and I hid it from them,” they said. “It’s an incredibly lonely place to be when you are worried about your family but can’t share it with them.” Several MPs argued on Friday that fears of intimidation and abuse should not be used to shut down legitimate protest, nor should pro-Palestine protesters be depicted as a mob. Diane Abbott, a former shadow home secretary, said on X: “I get more abuse and threats than most MPs. But the suggestion that police could close down peaceful demonstrations outside MPs’ offices, town halls and parliament is appalling.” Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, said on the social media platform: “Level of Islamophobia people are displaying currently is sickening. My constituents, family and friends are not Islamists, they do not hate any of these things. They are not a mob, they are just people. No one bullied me (any more than on any issue).” Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, sparked a debate on the intimidation of MPs this week when he broke parliamentary protocol to allow three separate votes on a ceasefire in Gaza. An emotional Hoyle told MPs he had taken his decision, which allowed Labour to dodge a difficult vote and sent the Commons into uproar, because he was fearful of an attack on MPs . “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists. I also don’t want another attack on this house,” he said. Parliamentary staff said Hoyle’s decision had them “in the middle of a storm” and placed them at increased risk. 1:43 Lindsay Hoyle apologises to SNP over Gaza debate but was 'protecting MPs' – video One parliamentary worker said her colleagues had received messages since the ceasefire votes accusing them of being “complicit in genocide”. Another had received voicemail messages saying they had “blood on their hands”. A staff member for an MP said it was “only a matter of time” until “the worst happens”. They said abuse had become normalised and that MPs had a platform to speak out about it, but staff do not have the same ability. A fourth parliamentary worker said Hoyle had created more risk for staff because of the perception that the Commons was undermining debate about Gaza. “Instead our safety is being used to defend decisions to undermine these debates, which then makes us a greater target,” they said. Explore more on these topics Politics Labour House of Commons Islamophobia Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Margaret Hodge news Share Reuse this content MPs have spoken about the lengths they are going to to keep safe amid heightened tensions over the war in the Middle East. Some Labour MPs who have been vocal on Israel and Palestine said they were fearful there could be a violent attack on a politician. While the vast majority of people make their views on the conflict known peacefully, MPs and staff said the politically charged atmosphere had brought an increase in abuse and threats. Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, said he felt his life was at risk. He has been subject to death threats and faced protests at his office and constituency surgeries since October. He said Thames Valley police had located the individual behind one death threat and charged them. “Everyone has a legitimate right to protest, but it’s the vitriol and the abuse and death threats which are completely unacceptable,” Dhesi said. “Some people are looking to blame somebody – their MP, councillor, anyone.” Like other MPs, Dhesi has had to take extra security measures since October, and now has a police presence at his constituency surgeries. “This will deter a lot of good people from entering politics simply because they know they have to basically get accustomed to a lot of abuse,” he said. He added that disinformation was making the problem worse. “I fear that someone sooner or later will be very seriously injured, if not killed, based on what people are perceiving to be the truth.” Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Read more Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking who once faced down a challenge in her constituency from the then British National party leader Nick Griffin in 2010, said that since October she had taken extra security precautions, including wearing a panic alarm. “I’m more careful about changing my route walking to the tube station or if I’m coming home,” she said. “I look more carefully around me.” She recalled resolving to go to John Lewis to buy a reading light before realising it was the Saturday of the first big pro-Palestinian march in London. “I just thought, ‘This is crazy Margaret – there will be loads of people in central London’. I didn’t do it,” she said. It was the same day that Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, was mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters as he walked through Victoria station. Hodge said she had seen an increase in threats and abuse, of which her staff bear the brunt. “Anything we think is awful, we go to the police. Some of my Muslim colleagues have been having a much harder time than I have.” A Muslim Labour MP who asked to be kept anonymous said they had received a “very serious death threat” before Christmas for being vocally pro-Palestine. “I live with my young children in my constituency and I hid it from them,” they said. “It’s an incredibly lonely place to be when you are worried about your family but can’t share it with them.” Several MPs argued on Friday that fears of intimidation and abuse should not be used to shut down legitimate protest, nor should pro-Palestine protesters be depicted as a mob. Diane Abbott, a former shadow home secretary, said on X: “I get more abuse and threats than most MPs. But the suggestion that police could close down peaceful demonstrations outside MPs’ offices, town halls and parliament is appalling.” Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, said on the social media platform: “Level of Islamophobia people are displaying currently is sickening. My constituents, family and friends are not Islamists, they do not hate any of these things. They are not a mob, they are just people. No one bullied me (any more than on any issue).” Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, sparked a debate on the intimidation of MPs this week when he broke parliamentary protocol to allow three separate votes on a ceasefire in Gaza. An emotional Hoyle told MPs he had taken his decision, which allowed Labour to dodge a difficult vote and sent the Commons into uproar, because he was fearful of an attack on MPs . “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists. I also don’t want another attack on this house,” he said. Parliamentary staff said Hoyle’s decision had them “in the middle of a storm” and placed them at increased risk. 1:43 Lindsay Hoyle apologises to SNP over Gaza debate but was 'protecting MPs' – video One parliamentary worker said her colleagues had received messages since the ceasefire votes accusing them of being “complicit in genocide”. Another had received voicemail messages saying they had “blood on their hands”. A staff member for an MP said it was “only a matter of time” until “the worst happens”. They said abuse had become normalised and that MPs had a platform to speak out about it, but staff do not have the same ability. A fourth parliamentary worker said Hoyle had created more risk for staff because of the perception that the Commons was undermining debate about Gaza. “Instead our safety is being used to defend decisions to undermine these debates, which then makes us a greater target,” they said. Explore more on these topics Politics Labour House of Commons Islamophobia Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Margaret Hodge news Share Reuse this content MPs have spoken about the lengths they are going to to keep safe amid heightened tensions over the war in the Middle East. Some Labour MPs who have been vocal on Israel and Palestine said they were fearful there could be a violent attack on a politician. While the vast majority of people make their views on the conflict known peacefully, MPs and staff said the politically charged atmosphere had brought an increase in abuse and threats. Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, said he felt his life was at risk. He has been subject to death threats and faced protests at his office and constituency surgeries since October. He said Thames Valley police had located the individual behind one death threat and charged them. “Everyone has a legitimate right to protest, but it’s the vitriol and the abuse and death threats which are completely unacceptable,” Dhesi said. “Some people are looking to blame somebody – their MP, councillor, anyone.” Like other MPs, Dhesi has had to take extra security measures since October, and now has a police presence at his constituency surgeries. “This will deter a lot of good people from entering politics simply because they know they have to basically get accustomed to a lot of abuse,” he said. He added that disinformation was making the problem worse. “I fear that someone sooner or later will be very seriously injured, if not killed, based on what people are perceiving to be the truth.” Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Read more Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking who once faced down a challenge in her constituency from the then British National party leader Nick Griffin in 2010, said that since October she had taken extra security precautions, including wearing a panic alarm. “I’m more careful about changing my route walking to the tube station or if I’m coming home,” she said. “I look more carefully around me.” She recalled resolving to go to John Lewis to buy a reading light before realising it was the Saturday of the first big pro-Palestinian march in London. “I just thought, ‘This is crazy Margaret – there will be loads of people in central London’. I didn’t do it,” she said. It was the same day that Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, was mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters as he walked through Victoria station. Hodge said she had seen an increase in threats and abuse, of which her staff bear the brunt. “Anything we think is awful, we go to the police. Some of my Muslim colleagues have been having a much harder time than I have.” A Muslim Labour MP who asked to be kept anonymous said they had received a “very serious death threat” before Christmas for being vocally pro-Palestine. “I live with my young children in my constituency and I hid it from them,” they said. “It’s an incredibly lonely place to be when you are worried about your family but can’t share it with them.” Several MPs argued on Friday that fears of intimidation and abuse should not be used to shut down legitimate protest, nor should pro-Palestine protesters be depicted as a mob. Diane Abbott, a former shadow home secretary, said on X: “I get more abuse and threats than most MPs. But the suggestion that police could close down peaceful demonstrations outside MPs’ offices, town halls and parliament is appalling.” Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, said on the social media platform: “Level of Islamophobia people are displaying currently is sickening. My constituents, family and friends are not Islamists, they do not hate any of these things. They are not a mob, they are just people. No one bullied me (any more than on any issue).” Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, sparked a debate on the intimidation of MPs this week when he broke parliamentary protocol to allow three separate votes on a ceasefire in Gaza. An emotional Hoyle told MPs he had taken his decision, which allowed Labour to dodge a difficult vote and sent the Commons into uproar, because he was fearful of an attack on MPs . “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists. I also don’t want another attack on this house,” he said. Parliamentary staff said Hoyle’s decision had them “in the middle of a storm” and placed them at increased risk. 1:43 Lindsay Hoyle apologises to SNP over Gaza debate but was 'protecting MPs' – video One parliamentary worker said her colleagues had received messages since the ceasefire votes accusing them of being “complicit in genocide”. Another had received voicemail messages saying they had “blood on their hands”. A staff member for an MP said it was “only a matter of time” until “the worst happens”. They said abuse had become normalised and that MPs had a platform to speak out about it, but staff do not have the same ability. A fourth parliamentary worker said Hoyle had created more risk for staff because of the perception that the Commons was undermining debate about Gaza. “Instead our safety is being used to defend decisions to undermine these debates, which then makes us a greater target,” they said. MPs have spoken about the lengths they are going to to keep safe amid heightened tensions over the war in the Middle East. Some Labour MPs who have been vocal on Israel and Palestine said they were fearful there could be a violent attack on a politician. While the vast majority of people make their views on the conflict known peacefully, MPs and staff said the politically charged atmosphere had brought an increase in abuse and threats. Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, said he felt his life was at risk. He has been subject to death threats and faced protests at his office and constituency surgeries since October. He said Thames Valley police had located the individual behind one death threat and charged them. “Everyone has a legitimate right to protest, but it’s the vitriol and the abuse and death threats which are completely unacceptable,” Dhesi said. “Some people are looking to blame somebody – their MP, councillor, anyone.” Like other MPs, Dhesi has had to take extra security measures since October, and now has a police presence at his constituency surgeries. “This will deter a lot of good people from entering politics simply because they know they have to basically get accustomed to a lot of abuse,” he said. He added that disinformation was making the problem worse. “I fear that someone sooner or later will be very seriously injured, if not killed, based on what people are perceiving to be the truth.” Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Read more Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking who once faced down a challenge in her constituency from the then British National party leader Nick Griffin in 2010, said that since October she had taken extra security precautions, including wearing a panic alarm. “I’m more careful about changing my route walking to the tube station or if I’m coming home,” she said. “I look more carefully around me.” She recalled resolving to go to John Lewis to buy a reading light before realising it was the Saturday of the first big pro-Palestinian march in London. “I just thought, ‘This is crazy Margaret – there will be loads of people in central London’. I didn’t do it,” she said. It was the same day that Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, was mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters as he walked through Victoria station. Hodge said she had seen an increase in threats and abuse, of which her staff bear the brunt. “Anything we think is awful, we go to the police. Some of my Muslim colleagues have been having a much harder time than I have.” A Muslim Labour MP who asked to be kept anonymous said they had received a “very serious death threat” before Christmas for being vocally pro-Palestine. “I live with my young children in my constituency and I hid it from them,” they said. “It’s an incredibly lonely place to be when you are worried about your family but can’t share it with them.” Several MPs argued on Friday that fears of intimidation and abuse should not be used to shut down legitimate protest, nor should pro-Palestine protesters be depicted as a mob. Diane Abbott, a former shadow home secretary, said on X: “I get more abuse and threats than most MPs. But the suggestion that police could close down peaceful demonstrations outside MPs’ offices, town halls and parliament is appalling.” Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, said on the social media platform: “Level of Islamophobia people are displaying currently is sickening. My constituents, family and friends are not Islamists, they do not hate any of these things. They are not a mob, they are just people. No one bullied me (any more than on any issue).” Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, sparked a debate on the intimidation of MPs this week when he broke parliamentary protocol to allow three separate votes on a ceasefire in Gaza. An emotional Hoyle told MPs he had taken his decision, which allowed Labour to dodge a difficult vote and sent the Commons into uproar, because he was fearful of an attack on MPs . “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists. I also don’t want another attack on this house,” he said. Parliamentary staff said Hoyle’s decision had them “in the middle of a storm” and placed them at increased risk. 1:43 Lindsay Hoyle apologises to SNP over Gaza debate but was 'protecting MPs' – video One parliamentary worker said her colleagues had received messages since the ceasefire votes accusing them of being “complicit in genocide”. Another had received voicemail messages saying they had “blood on their hands”. A staff member for an MP said it was “only a matter of time” until “the worst happens”. They said abuse had become normalised and that MPs had a platform to speak out about it, but staff do not have the same ability. A fourth parliamentary worker said Hoyle had created more risk for staff because of the perception that the Commons was undermining debate about Gaza. “Instead our safety is being used to defend decisions to undermine these debates, which then makes us a greater target,” they said. MPs have spoken about the lengths they are going to to keep safe amid heightened tensions over the war in the Middle East. Some Labour MPs who have been vocal on Israel and Palestine said they were fearful there could be a violent attack on a politician. While the vast majority of people make their views on the conflict known peacefully, MPs and staff said the politically charged atmosphere had brought an increase in abuse and threats. Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, said he felt his life was at risk. He has been subject to death threats and faced protests at his office and constituency surgeries since October. He said Thames Valley police had located the individual behind one death threat and charged them. “Everyone has a legitimate right to protest, but it’s the vitriol and the abuse and death threats which are completely unacceptable,” Dhesi said. “Some people are looking to blame somebody – their MP, councillor, anyone.” Like other MPs, Dhesi has had to take extra security measures since October, and now has a police presence at his constituency surgeries. “This will deter a lot of good people from entering politics simply because they know they have to basically get accustomed to a lot of abuse,” he said. He added that disinformation was making the problem worse. “I fear that someone sooner or later will be very seriously injured, if not killed, based on what people are perceiving to be the truth.” Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Read more Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Read more Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Read more Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Why is the Commons speaker facing calls to quit and what happens next? Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking who once faced down a challenge in her constituency from the then British National party leader Nick Griffin in 2010, said that since October she had taken extra security precautions, including wearing a panic alarm. “I’m more careful about changing my route walking to the tube station or if I’m coming home,” she said. “I look more carefully around me.” She recalled resolving to go to John Lewis to buy a reading light before realising it was the Saturday of the first big pro-Palestinian march in London. “I just thought, ‘This is crazy Margaret – there will be loads of people in central London’. I didn’t do it,” she said. It was the same day that Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, was mobbed by pro-Palestinian protesters as he walked through Victoria station. Hodge said she had seen an increase in threats and abuse, of which her staff bear the brunt. “Anything we think is awful, we go to the police. Some of my Muslim colleagues have been having a much harder time than I have.” A Muslim Labour MP who asked to be kept anonymous said they had received a “very serious death threat” before Christmas for being vocally pro-Palestine. “I live with my young children in my constituency and I hid it from them,” they said. “It’s an incredibly lonely place to be when you are worried about your family but can’t share it with them.” Several MPs argued on Friday that fears of intimidation and abuse should not be used to shut down legitimate protest, nor should pro-Palestine protesters be depicted as a mob. Diane Abbott, a former shadow home secretary, said on X: “I get more abuse and threats than most MPs. But the suggestion that police could close down peaceful demonstrations outside MPs’ offices, town halls and parliament is appalling.” Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, said on the social media platform: “Level of Islamophobia people are displaying currently is sickening. My constituents, family and friends are not Islamists, they do not hate any of these things. They are not a mob, they are just people. No one bullied me (any more than on any issue).” Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, sparked a debate on the intimidation of MPs this week when he broke parliamentary protocol to allow three separate votes on a ceasefire in Gaza. An emotional Hoyle told MPs he had taken his decision, which allowed Labour to dodge a difficult vote and sent the Commons into uproar, because he was fearful of an attack on MPs . “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists. I also don’t want another attack on this house,” he said. Parliamentary staff said Hoyle’s decision had them “in the middle of a storm” and placed them at increased risk. 1:43 Lindsay Hoyle apologises to SNP over Gaza debate but was 'protecting MPs' – video One parliamentary worker said her colleagues had received messages since the ceasefire votes accusing them of being “complicit in genocide”. Another had received voicemail messages saying they had “blood on their hands”. A staff member for an MP said it was “only a matter of time” until “the worst happens”. They said abuse had become normalised and that MPs had a platform to speak out about it, but staff do not have the same ability. A fourth parliamentary worker said Hoyle had created more risk for staff because of the perception that the Commons was undermining debate about Gaza. “Instead our safety is being used to defend decisions to undermine these debates, which then makes us a greater target,” they said. Explore more on these topics Politics Labour House of Commons Islamophobia Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Margaret Hodge news Share Reuse this content Politics Labour House of Commons Islamophobia Antisemitism Israel-Gaza war Margaret Hodge news |
The case for overturning Commons conventions
‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV View image in fullscreen ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV This article is more than 1 year old Letters The case for overturning Commons conventions This article is more than 1 year old Joyce Quin says Sir Lindsay Hoyle was right to allow a range of views on a difficult issue, while Lyn A Dade calls the debate a tawdry farce that makes no difference to the suffering in Gaza. Plus letters from Helen Beioley , Robert Dyson , Mark Gooding , Bill Kirton and Keith Flett There has been a lot of hot air following the ruling by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of the House of Commons ( Lindsay Hoyle fights back as Sunak criticises speaker’s ‘concerning’ choice, 22 February ). Conservatives and the Scottish National party in particular should reflect that they may well benefit from any move away from the hitherto rigid approach towards amendments to motions. The speaker was right to stress the importance of allowing a range of views on difficult and important issues. I well remember in the debate over war in Iraq not wanting to vote for either the government’s motion or the only amendment that had been allowed, and preferring a third that had not been selected. Joyce Quin Labour, House of Lords “Everyone wanted a ceasefire. Only they wanted their own ceasefire, not anyone else’s ceasefire.” John Crace is spot-on in his parliamentary sketch ( While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire, 21 February ). A day wasted and Westminster politics revealed for what it is. A tawdry farce whose outcome – even if “precedent” had been followed – would make no difference to the suffering in Gaza. And all this while we continue to send arms to Israel. Shameful. Lyn A Dade Twickenham, London Thank you to John Crace for summarising what I felt. His white-hot fury regarding the ridiculous shenanigans in parliament over the Gaza conflict was powerful writing that cut through to my soul. Helen Beioley France Lynch, Gloucestershire Clearly the Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue. The speaker had reasons for moving away from convention. He should have stuck to his guns rather than apologise. He might also dump other conventions and allow polite clapping to signify approval as is the norm in civilised society, and insist on prime ministers answering the questions rather than rabbiting out unrelated set pieces. Robert Dyson Kenilworth, Warwickshire Should Russia invade Poland, I assume there will be a debate in the House of Commons . Let’s imagine that the Liberal Democrats use an opposition day motion to propose a policy of pacifism, and the Conservatives counter with a plan to nuke Moscow. It would be absurd if other policies were not then considered. The conventions of the House of Commons are as outdated as Jacob Rees-Mogg’s double-breasted suit. Mark Gooding London Your report ( Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos, 21 February ) reminded me that I’ve been thinking of setting my next novel in an undistinguished country in which, in the course of a single day, the machinations of just one essentially powerless individual disrupt its governance so comprehensively that it is in effect without leadership while, simultaneously, its nuclear defence capabilities prove themselves to be inoperative. Do you think the idea stretches credulity too far? Bill Kirton Aberdeen As a socialist, I always think people can change for the better, so I agree that while Lindsay Hoyle made a mistake in taking a decision that prevented an SNP motion calling for an immediate unconditional ceasefire in Gaza to be debated and voted on, he can make amends by allowing this now to happen ( Editorial, 22 February ). What is less excusable is his effort to somehow link entirely peaceful protests for Palestine with a terrorist threat to MPs. There is no factual basis to that point and he needs to apologise for making it. Keith Flett Tottenham, London Explore more on these topics House of Commons Commons speaker Labour Conservatives Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war letters Share Reuse this content ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV View image in fullscreen ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV This article is more than 1 year old Letters The case for overturning Commons conventions This article is more than 1 year old Joyce Quin says Sir Lindsay Hoyle was right to allow a range of views on a difficult issue, while Lyn A Dade calls the debate a tawdry farce that makes no difference to the suffering in Gaza. Plus letters from Helen Beioley , Robert Dyson , Mark Gooding , Bill Kirton and Keith Flett There has been a lot of hot air following the ruling by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of the House of Commons ( Lindsay Hoyle fights back as Sunak criticises speaker’s ‘concerning’ choice, 22 February ). Conservatives and the Scottish National party in particular should reflect that they may well benefit from any move away from the hitherto rigid approach towards amendments to motions. The speaker was right to stress the importance of allowing a range of views on difficult and important issues. I well remember in the debate over war in Iraq not wanting to vote for either the government’s motion or the only amendment that had been allowed, and preferring a third that had not been selected. Joyce Quin Labour, House of Lords “Everyone wanted a ceasefire. Only they wanted their own ceasefire, not anyone else’s ceasefire.” John Crace is spot-on in his parliamentary sketch ( While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire, 21 February ). A day wasted and Westminster politics revealed for what it is. A tawdry farce whose outcome – even if “precedent” had been followed – would make no difference to the suffering in Gaza. And all this while we continue to send arms to Israel. Shameful. Lyn A Dade Twickenham, London Thank you to John Crace for summarising what I felt. His white-hot fury regarding the ridiculous shenanigans in parliament over the Gaza conflict was powerful writing that cut through to my soul. Helen Beioley France Lynch, Gloucestershire Clearly the Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue. The speaker had reasons for moving away from convention. He should have stuck to his guns rather than apologise. He might also dump other conventions and allow polite clapping to signify approval as is the norm in civilised society, and insist on prime ministers answering the questions rather than rabbiting out unrelated set pieces. Robert Dyson Kenilworth, Warwickshire Should Russia invade Poland, I assume there will be a debate in the House of Commons . Let’s imagine that the Liberal Democrats use an opposition day motion to propose a policy of pacifism, and the Conservatives counter with a plan to nuke Moscow. It would be absurd if other policies were not then considered. The conventions of the House of Commons are as outdated as Jacob Rees-Mogg’s double-breasted suit. Mark Gooding London Your report ( Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos, 21 February ) reminded me that I’ve been thinking of setting my next novel in an undistinguished country in which, in the course of a single day, the machinations of just one essentially powerless individual disrupt its governance so comprehensively that it is in effect without leadership while, simultaneously, its nuclear defence capabilities prove themselves to be inoperative. Do you think the idea stretches credulity too far? Bill Kirton Aberdeen As a socialist, I always think people can change for the better, so I agree that while Lindsay Hoyle made a mistake in taking a decision that prevented an SNP motion calling for an immediate unconditional ceasefire in Gaza to be debated and voted on, he can make amends by allowing this now to happen ( Editorial, 22 February ). What is less excusable is his effort to somehow link entirely peaceful protests for Palestine with a terrorist threat to MPs. There is no factual basis to that point and he needs to apologise for making it. Keith Flett Tottenham, London Explore more on these topics House of Commons Commons speaker Labour Conservatives Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war letters Share Reuse this content ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV View image in fullscreen ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV View image in fullscreen ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV View image in fullscreen ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV View image in fullscreen ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV ‘The Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue.’ Photograph: Parliament TV This article is more than 1 year old Letters The case for overturning Commons conventions This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Letters The case for overturning Commons conventions This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Letters The case for overturning Commons conventions This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Letters The case for overturning Commons conventions This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Joyce Quin says Sir Lindsay Hoyle was right to allow a range of views on a difficult issue, while Lyn A Dade calls the debate a tawdry farce that makes no difference to the suffering in Gaza. Plus letters from Helen Beioley , Robert Dyson , Mark Gooding , Bill Kirton and Keith Flett Joyce Quin says Sir Lindsay Hoyle was right to allow a range of views on a difficult issue, while Lyn A Dade calls the debate a tawdry farce that makes no difference to the suffering in Gaza. Plus letters from Helen Beioley , Robert Dyson , Mark Gooding , Bill Kirton and Keith Flett Joyce Quin says Sir Lindsay Hoyle was right to allow a range of views on a difficult issue, while Lyn A Dade calls the debate a tawdry farce that makes no difference to the suffering in Gaza. Plus letters from Helen Beioley , Robert Dyson , Mark Gooding , Bill Kirton and Keith Flett There has been a lot of hot air following the ruling by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of the House of Commons ( Lindsay Hoyle fights back as Sunak criticises speaker’s ‘concerning’ choice, 22 February ). Conservatives and the Scottish National party in particular should reflect that they may well benefit from any move away from the hitherto rigid approach towards amendments to motions. The speaker was right to stress the importance of allowing a range of views on difficult and important issues. I well remember in the debate over war in Iraq not wanting to vote for either the government’s motion or the only amendment that had been allowed, and preferring a third that had not been selected. Joyce Quin Labour, House of Lords “Everyone wanted a ceasefire. Only they wanted their own ceasefire, not anyone else’s ceasefire.” John Crace is spot-on in his parliamentary sketch ( While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire, 21 February ). A day wasted and Westminster politics revealed for what it is. A tawdry farce whose outcome – even if “precedent” had been followed – would make no difference to the suffering in Gaza. And all this while we continue to send arms to Israel. Shameful. Lyn A Dade Twickenham, London Thank you to John Crace for summarising what I felt. His white-hot fury regarding the ridiculous shenanigans in parliament over the Gaza conflict was powerful writing that cut through to my soul. Helen Beioley France Lynch, Gloucestershire Clearly the Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue. The speaker had reasons for moving away from convention. He should have stuck to his guns rather than apologise. He might also dump other conventions and allow polite clapping to signify approval as is the norm in civilised society, and insist on prime ministers answering the questions rather than rabbiting out unrelated set pieces. Robert Dyson Kenilworth, Warwickshire Should Russia invade Poland, I assume there will be a debate in the House of Commons . Let’s imagine that the Liberal Democrats use an opposition day motion to propose a policy of pacifism, and the Conservatives counter with a plan to nuke Moscow. It would be absurd if other policies were not then considered. The conventions of the House of Commons are as outdated as Jacob Rees-Mogg’s double-breasted suit. Mark Gooding London Your report ( Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos, 21 February ) reminded me that I’ve been thinking of setting my next novel in an undistinguished country in which, in the course of a single day, the machinations of just one essentially powerless individual disrupt its governance so comprehensively that it is in effect without leadership while, simultaneously, its nuclear defence capabilities prove themselves to be inoperative. Do you think the idea stretches credulity too far? Bill Kirton Aberdeen As a socialist, I always think people can change for the better, so I agree that while Lindsay Hoyle made a mistake in taking a decision that prevented an SNP motion calling for an immediate unconditional ceasefire in Gaza to be debated and voted on, he can make amends by allowing this now to happen ( Editorial, 22 February ). What is less excusable is his effort to somehow link entirely peaceful protests for Palestine with a terrorist threat to MPs. There is no factual basis to that point and he needs to apologise for making it. Keith Flett Tottenham, London Explore more on these topics House of Commons Commons speaker Labour Conservatives Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war letters Share Reuse this content There has been a lot of hot air following the ruling by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of the House of Commons ( Lindsay Hoyle fights back as Sunak criticises speaker’s ‘concerning’ choice, 22 February ). Conservatives and the Scottish National party in particular should reflect that they may well benefit from any move away from the hitherto rigid approach towards amendments to motions. The speaker was right to stress the importance of allowing a range of views on difficult and important issues. I well remember in the debate over war in Iraq not wanting to vote for either the government’s motion or the only amendment that had been allowed, and preferring a third that had not been selected. Joyce Quin Labour, House of Lords “Everyone wanted a ceasefire. Only they wanted their own ceasefire, not anyone else’s ceasefire.” John Crace is spot-on in his parliamentary sketch ( While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire, 21 February ). A day wasted and Westminster politics revealed for what it is. A tawdry farce whose outcome – even if “precedent” had been followed – would make no difference to the suffering in Gaza. And all this while we continue to send arms to Israel. Shameful. Lyn A Dade Twickenham, London Thank you to John Crace for summarising what I felt. His white-hot fury regarding the ridiculous shenanigans in parliament over the Gaza conflict was powerful writing that cut through to my soul. Helen Beioley France Lynch, Gloucestershire Clearly the Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue. The speaker had reasons for moving away from convention. He should have stuck to his guns rather than apologise. He might also dump other conventions and allow polite clapping to signify approval as is the norm in civilised society, and insist on prime ministers answering the questions rather than rabbiting out unrelated set pieces. Robert Dyson Kenilworth, Warwickshire Should Russia invade Poland, I assume there will be a debate in the House of Commons . Let’s imagine that the Liberal Democrats use an opposition day motion to propose a policy of pacifism, and the Conservatives counter with a plan to nuke Moscow. It would be absurd if other policies were not then considered. The conventions of the House of Commons are as outdated as Jacob Rees-Mogg’s double-breasted suit. Mark Gooding London Your report ( Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos, 21 February ) reminded me that I’ve been thinking of setting my next novel in an undistinguished country in which, in the course of a single day, the machinations of just one essentially powerless individual disrupt its governance so comprehensively that it is in effect without leadership while, simultaneously, its nuclear defence capabilities prove themselves to be inoperative. Do you think the idea stretches credulity too far? Bill Kirton Aberdeen As a socialist, I always think people can change for the better, so I agree that while Lindsay Hoyle made a mistake in taking a decision that prevented an SNP motion calling for an immediate unconditional ceasefire in Gaza to be debated and voted on, he can make amends by allowing this now to happen ( Editorial, 22 February ). What is less excusable is his effort to somehow link entirely peaceful protests for Palestine with a terrorist threat to MPs. There is no factual basis to that point and he needs to apologise for making it. Keith Flett Tottenham, London Explore more on these topics House of Commons Commons speaker Labour Conservatives Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war letters Share Reuse this content There has been a lot of hot air following the ruling by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of the House of Commons ( Lindsay Hoyle fights back as Sunak criticises speaker’s ‘concerning’ choice, 22 February ). Conservatives and the Scottish National party in particular should reflect that they may well benefit from any move away from the hitherto rigid approach towards amendments to motions. The speaker was right to stress the importance of allowing a range of views on difficult and important issues. I well remember in the debate over war in Iraq not wanting to vote for either the government’s motion or the only amendment that had been allowed, and preferring a third that had not been selected. Joyce Quin Labour, House of Lords “Everyone wanted a ceasefire. Only they wanted their own ceasefire, not anyone else’s ceasefire.” John Crace is spot-on in his parliamentary sketch ( While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire, 21 February ). A day wasted and Westminster politics revealed for what it is. A tawdry farce whose outcome – even if “precedent” had been followed – would make no difference to the suffering in Gaza. And all this while we continue to send arms to Israel. Shameful. Lyn A Dade Twickenham, London Thank you to John Crace for summarising what I felt. His white-hot fury regarding the ridiculous shenanigans in parliament over the Gaza conflict was powerful writing that cut through to my soul. Helen Beioley France Lynch, Gloucestershire Clearly the Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue. The speaker had reasons for moving away from convention. He should have stuck to his guns rather than apologise. He might also dump other conventions and allow polite clapping to signify approval as is the norm in civilised society, and insist on prime ministers answering the questions rather than rabbiting out unrelated set pieces. Robert Dyson Kenilworth, Warwickshire Should Russia invade Poland, I assume there will be a debate in the House of Commons . Let’s imagine that the Liberal Democrats use an opposition day motion to propose a policy of pacifism, and the Conservatives counter with a plan to nuke Moscow. It would be absurd if other policies were not then considered. The conventions of the House of Commons are as outdated as Jacob Rees-Mogg’s double-breasted suit. Mark Gooding London Your report ( Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos, 21 February ) reminded me that I’ve been thinking of setting my next novel in an undistinguished country in which, in the course of a single day, the machinations of just one essentially powerless individual disrupt its governance so comprehensively that it is in effect without leadership while, simultaneously, its nuclear defence capabilities prove themselves to be inoperative. Do you think the idea stretches credulity too far? Bill Kirton Aberdeen As a socialist, I always think people can change for the better, so I agree that while Lindsay Hoyle made a mistake in taking a decision that prevented an SNP motion calling for an immediate unconditional ceasefire in Gaza to be debated and voted on, he can make amends by allowing this now to happen ( Editorial, 22 February ). What is less excusable is his effort to somehow link entirely peaceful protests for Palestine with a terrorist threat to MPs. There is no factual basis to that point and he needs to apologise for making it. Keith Flett Tottenham, London Explore more on these topics House of Commons Commons speaker Labour Conservatives Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war letters Share Reuse this content There has been a lot of hot air following the ruling by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of the House of Commons ( Lindsay Hoyle fights back as Sunak criticises speaker’s ‘concerning’ choice, 22 February ). Conservatives and the Scottish National party in particular should reflect that they may well benefit from any move away from the hitherto rigid approach towards amendments to motions. The speaker was right to stress the importance of allowing a range of views on difficult and important issues. I well remember in the debate over war in Iraq not wanting to vote for either the government’s motion or the only amendment that had been allowed, and preferring a third that had not been selected. Joyce Quin Labour, House of Lords “Everyone wanted a ceasefire. Only they wanted their own ceasefire, not anyone else’s ceasefire.” John Crace is spot-on in his parliamentary sketch ( While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire, 21 February ). A day wasted and Westminster politics revealed for what it is. A tawdry farce whose outcome – even if “precedent” had been followed – would make no difference to the suffering in Gaza. And all this while we continue to send arms to Israel. Shameful. Lyn A Dade Twickenham, London Thank you to John Crace for summarising what I felt. His white-hot fury regarding the ridiculous shenanigans in parliament over the Gaza conflict was powerful writing that cut through to my soul. Helen Beioley France Lynch, Gloucestershire Clearly the Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue. The speaker had reasons for moving away from convention. He should have stuck to his guns rather than apologise. He might also dump other conventions and allow polite clapping to signify approval as is the norm in civilised society, and insist on prime ministers answering the questions rather than rabbiting out unrelated set pieces. Robert Dyson Kenilworth, Warwickshire Should Russia invade Poland, I assume there will be a debate in the House of Commons . Let’s imagine that the Liberal Democrats use an opposition day motion to propose a policy of pacifism, and the Conservatives counter with a plan to nuke Moscow. It would be absurd if other policies were not then considered. The conventions of the House of Commons are as outdated as Jacob Rees-Mogg’s double-breasted suit. Mark Gooding London Your report ( Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos, 21 February ) reminded me that I’ve been thinking of setting my next novel in an undistinguished country in which, in the course of a single day, the machinations of just one essentially powerless individual disrupt its governance so comprehensively that it is in effect without leadership while, simultaneously, its nuclear defence capabilities prove themselves to be inoperative. Do you think the idea stretches credulity too far? Bill Kirton Aberdeen As a socialist, I always think people can change for the better, so I agree that while Lindsay Hoyle made a mistake in taking a decision that prevented an SNP motion calling for an immediate unconditional ceasefire in Gaza to be debated and voted on, he can make amends by allowing this now to happen ( Editorial, 22 February ). What is less excusable is his effort to somehow link entirely peaceful protests for Palestine with a terrorist threat to MPs. There is no factual basis to that point and he needs to apologise for making it. Keith Flett Tottenham, London There has been a lot of hot air following the ruling by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of the House of Commons ( Lindsay Hoyle fights back as Sunak criticises speaker’s ‘concerning’ choice, 22 February ). Conservatives and the Scottish National party in particular should reflect that they may well benefit from any move away from the hitherto rigid approach towards amendments to motions. The speaker was right to stress the importance of allowing a range of views on difficult and important issues. I well remember in the debate over war in Iraq not wanting to vote for either the government’s motion or the only amendment that had been allowed, and preferring a third that had not been selected. Joyce Quin Labour, House of Lords “Everyone wanted a ceasefire. Only they wanted their own ceasefire, not anyone else’s ceasefire.” John Crace is spot-on in his parliamentary sketch ( While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire, 21 February ). A day wasted and Westminster politics revealed for what it is. A tawdry farce whose outcome – even if “precedent” had been followed – would make no difference to the suffering in Gaza. And all this while we continue to send arms to Israel. Shameful. Lyn A Dade Twickenham, London Thank you to John Crace for summarising what I felt. His white-hot fury regarding the ridiculous shenanigans in parliament over the Gaza conflict was powerful writing that cut through to my soul. Helen Beioley France Lynch, Gloucestershire Clearly the Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue. The speaker had reasons for moving away from convention. He should have stuck to his guns rather than apologise. He might also dump other conventions and allow polite clapping to signify approval as is the norm in civilised society, and insist on prime ministers answering the questions rather than rabbiting out unrelated set pieces. Robert Dyson Kenilworth, Warwickshire Should Russia invade Poland, I assume there will be a debate in the House of Commons . Let’s imagine that the Liberal Democrats use an opposition day motion to propose a policy of pacifism, and the Conservatives counter with a plan to nuke Moscow. It would be absurd if other policies were not then considered. The conventions of the House of Commons are as outdated as Jacob Rees-Mogg’s double-breasted suit. Mark Gooding London Your report ( Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos, 21 February ) reminded me that I’ve been thinking of setting my next novel in an undistinguished country in which, in the course of a single day, the machinations of just one essentially powerless individual disrupt its governance so comprehensively that it is in effect without leadership while, simultaneously, its nuclear defence capabilities prove themselves to be inoperative. Do you think the idea stretches credulity too far? Bill Kirton Aberdeen As a socialist, I always think people can change for the better, so I agree that while Lindsay Hoyle made a mistake in taking a decision that prevented an SNP motion calling for an immediate unconditional ceasefire in Gaza to be debated and voted on, he can make amends by allowing this now to happen ( Editorial, 22 February ). What is less excusable is his effort to somehow link entirely peaceful protests for Palestine with a terrorist threat to MPs. There is no factual basis to that point and he needs to apologise for making it. Keith Flett Tottenham, London There has been a lot of hot air following the ruling by Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of the House of Commons ( Lindsay Hoyle fights back as Sunak criticises speaker’s ‘concerning’ choice, 22 February ). Conservatives and the Scottish National party in particular should reflect that they may well benefit from any move away from the hitherto rigid approach towards amendments to motions. The speaker was right to stress the importance of allowing a range of views on difficult and important issues. I well remember in the debate over war in Iraq not wanting to vote for either the government’s motion or the only amendment that had been allowed, and preferring a third that had not been selected. Joyce Quin Labour, House of Lords “Everyone wanted a ceasefire. Only they wanted their own ceasefire, not anyone else’s ceasefire.” John Crace is spot-on in his parliamentary sketch ( While people die in Gaza, the UK parliament goes to war over the ceasefire, 21 February ). A day wasted and Westminster politics revealed for what it is. A tawdry farce whose outcome – even if “precedent” had been followed – would make no difference to the suffering in Gaza. And all this while we continue to send arms to Israel. Shameful. Lyn A Dade Twickenham, London Thank you to John Crace for summarising what I felt. His white-hot fury regarding the ridiculous shenanigans in parliament over the Gaza conflict was powerful writing that cut through to my soul. Helen Beioley France Lynch, Gloucestershire Clearly the Conservatives and the SNP were more interested in using convention to present Labour with a Hobson’s choice rather than engaging with the substantive issue. The speaker had reasons for moving away from convention. He should have stuck to his guns rather than apologise. He might also dump other conventions and allow polite clapping to signify approval as is the norm in civilised society, and insist on prime ministers answering the questions rather than rabbiting out unrelated set pieces. Robert Dyson Kenilworth, Warwickshire Should Russia invade Poland, I assume there will be a debate in the House of Commons . Let’s imagine that the Liberal Democrats use an opposition day motion to propose a policy of pacifism, and the Conservatives counter with a plan to nuke Moscow. It would be absurd if other policies were not then considered. The conventions of the House of Commons are as outdated as Jacob Rees-Mogg’s double-breasted suit. Mark Gooding London Your report ( Commons speaker apologises after Gaza ceasefire debate descends into chaos, 21 February ) reminded me that I’ve been thinking of setting my next novel in an undistinguished country in which, in the course of a single day, the machinations of just one essentially powerless individual disrupt its governance so comprehensively that it is in effect without leadership while, simultaneously, its nuclear defence capabilities prove themselves to be inoperative. Do you think the idea stretches credulity too far? Bill Kirton Aberdeen As a socialist, I always think people can change for the better, so I agree that while Lindsay Hoyle made a mistake in taking a decision that prevented an SNP motion calling for an immediate unconditional ceasefire in Gaza to be debated and voted on, he can make amends by allowing this now to happen ( Editorial, 22 February ). What is less excusable is his effort to somehow link entirely peaceful protests for Palestine with a terrorist threat to MPs. There is no factual basis to that point and he needs to apologise for making it. Keith Flett Tottenham, London Explore more on these topics House of Commons Commons speaker Labour Conservatives Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war letters Share Reuse this content House of Commons Commons speaker Labour Conservatives Scottish National party (SNP) Israel-Gaza war letters |
‘Daylight robbery’: two in five UK teachers work 26 hours for free each week
The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA This article is more than 1 year old ‘Daylight robbery’: two in five UK teachers work 26 hours for free each week This article is more than 1 year old TUC survey finds teaching staff perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession, losing out on £15,000 a year each Teaching unions have accused ministers of “daylight robbery” after a new survey by the Trades Union Congress revealed that teachers perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession. The TUC survey – published to mark its Work Your Proper Hours Day on Friday – found that two out of five teaching staff in the UK worked 26 hours for free each week, for a combined 5.5m hours a year. Patrick Roach, the general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, said it was “shameful evidence” that the government was relying on free labour rather than investing in schools and colleges. “The fact that teachers are losing out on average by £15,000 a year in unpaid overtime is nothing less than daylight robbery,” Roach said. Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report Read more “Teachers are seeing their workloads piled higher and higher, and with cuts to support staff and cuts to other children’s services, teachers are now working around the clock. “Our latest research found that more than half of teachers polled worked over 50 hours a week, with some working more than 70 hours. This is unsustainable and unacceptable. “World-class education cannot be built off the backs of overworked and underpaid teachers and headteachers.” The figures come as the Department for Education in England will miss its deadline for making its submission to the annual pay round, leading to protests by school leaders over the potential delays in reaching a settlement. The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said: “Most workers don’t mind putting in extra hours from time to time. But unpaid overtime is out of control for teachers. And nobody should be expected to work without pay for all the hours they do.” Overall, 3.8 million workers in the UK worked unpaid overtime last year, according to the survey, doing more than seven unpaid hours each week. The TUC estimated that was equivalent to £7,200 a year of wages going unpaid. Despite the concerns of the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg , public sector staff were more likely to put in unpaid overtime than their peers in the private sector. The survey found that one in six public sector workers did unpaid overtime in 2023, amounting to £11bn, compared with one in nine in the private sector. The TUC’s campaign aims to encourage workers to take all the breaks they are entitled to, and finish their shifts on time. Explore more on these topics Teachers' workload Teaching Trade unions TUC Work & careers School funding Schools news Share Reuse this content The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA This article is more than 1 year old ‘Daylight robbery’: two in five UK teachers work 26 hours for free each week This article is more than 1 year old TUC survey finds teaching staff perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession, losing out on £15,000 a year each Teaching unions have accused ministers of “daylight robbery” after a new survey by the Trades Union Congress revealed that teachers perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession. The TUC survey – published to mark its Work Your Proper Hours Day on Friday – found that two out of five teaching staff in the UK worked 26 hours for free each week, for a combined 5.5m hours a year. Patrick Roach, the general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, said it was “shameful evidence” that the government was relying on free labour rather than investing in schools and colleges. “The fact that teachers are losing out on average by £15,000 a year in unpaid overtime is nothing less than daylight robbery,” Roach said. Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report Read more “Teachers are seeing their workloads piled higher and higher, and with cuts to support staff and cuts to other children’s services, teachers are now working around the clock. “Our latest research found that more than half of teachers polled worked over 50 hours a week, with some working more than 70 hours. This is unsustainable and unacceptable. “World-class education cannot be built off the backs of overworked and underpaid teachers and headteachers.” The figures come as the Department for Education in England will miss its deadline for making its submission to the annual pay round, leading to protests by school leaders over the potential delays in reaching a settlement. The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said: “Most workers don’t mind putting in extra hours from time to time. But unpaid overtime is out of control for teachers. And nobody should be expected to work without pay for all the hours they do.” Overall, 3.8 million workers in the UK worked unpaid overtime last year, according to the survey, doing more than seven unpaid hours each week. The TUC estimated that was equivalent to £7,200 a year of wages going unpaid. Despite the concerns of the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg , public sector staff were more likely to put in unpaid overtime than their peers in the private sector. The survey found that one in six public sector workers did unpaid overtime in 2023, amounting to £11bn, compared with one in nine in the private sector. The TUC’s campaign aims to encourage workers to take all the breaks they are entitled to, and finish their shifts on time. Explore more on these topics Teachers' workload Teaching Trade unions TUC Work & careers School funding Schools news Share Reuse this content The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA View image in fullscreen The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Photograph: PA This article is more than 1 year old ‘Daylight robbery’: two in five UK teachers work 26 hours for free each week This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Daylight robbery’: two in five UK teachers work 26 hours for free each week This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Daylight robbery’: two in five UK teachers work 26 hours for free each week This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old TUC survey finds teaching staff perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession, losing out on £15,000 a year each TUC survey finds teaching staff perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession, losing out on £15,000 a year each TUC survey finds teaching staff perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession, losing out on £15,000 a year each Teaching unions have accused ministers of “daylight robbery” after a new survey by the Trades Union Congress revealed that teachers perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession. The TUC survey – published to mark its Work Your Proper Hours Day on Friday – found that two out of five teaching staff in the UK worked 26 hours for free each week, for a combined 5.5m hours a year. Patrick Roach, the general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, said it was “shameful evidence” that the government was relying on free labour rather than investing in schools and colleges. “The fact that teachers are losing out on average by £15,000 a year in unpaid overtime is nothing less than daylight robbery,” Roach said. Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report Read more “Teachers are seeing their workloads piled higher and higher, and with cuts to support staff and cuts to other children’s services, teachers are now working around the clock. “Our latest research found that more than half of teachers polled worked over 50 hours a week, with some working more than 70 hours. This is unsustainable and unacceptable. “World-class education cannot be built off the backs of overworked and underpaid teachers and headteachers.” The figures come as the Department for Education in England will miss its deadline for making its submission to the annual pay round, leading to protests by school leaders over the potential delays in reaching a settlement. The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said: “Most workers don’t mind putting in extra hours from time to time. But unpaid overtime is out of control for teachers. And nobody should be expected to work without pay for all the hours they do.” Overall, 3.8 million workers in the UK worked unpaid overtime last year, according to the survey, doing more than seven unpaid hours each week. The TUC estimated that was equivalent to £7,200 a year of wages going unpaid. Despite the concerns of the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg , public sector staff were more likely to put in unpaid overtime than their peers in the private sector. The survey found that one in six public sector workers did unpaid overtime in 2023, amounting to £11bn, compared with one in nine in the private sector. The TUC’s campaign aims to encourage workers to take all the breaks they are entitled to, and finish their shifts on time. Explore more on these topics Teachers' workload Teaching Trade unions TUC Work & careers School funding Schools news Share Reuse this content Teaching unions have accused ministers of “daylight robbery” after a new survey by the Trades Union Congress revealed that teachers perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession. The TUC survey – published to mark its Work Your Proper Hours Day on Friday – found that two out of five teaching staff in the UK worked 26 hours for free each week, for a combined 5.5m hours a year. Patrick Roach, the general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, said it was “shameful evidence” that the government was relying on free labour rather than investing in schools and colleges. “The fact that teachers are losing out on average by £15,000 a year in unpaid overtime is nothing less than daylight robbery,” Roach said. Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report Read more “Teachers are seeing their workloads piled higher and higher, and with cuts to support staff and cuts to other children’s services, teachers are now working around the clock. “Our latest research found that more than half of teachers polled worked over 50 hours a week, with some working more than 70 hours. This is unsustainable and unacceptable. “World-class education cannot be built off the backs of overworked and underpaid teachers and headteachers.” The figures come as the Department for Education in England will miss its deadline for making its submission to the annual pay round, leading to protests by school leaders over the potential delays in reaching a settlement. The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said: “Most workers don’t mind putting in extra hours from time to time. But unpaid overtime is out of control for teachers. And nobody should be expected to work without pay for all the hours they do.” Overall, 3.8 million workers in the UK worked unpaid overtime last year, according to the survey, doing more than seven unpaid hours each week. The TUC estimated that was equivalent to £7,200 a year of wages going unpaid. Despite the concerns of the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg , public sector staff were more likely to put in unpaid overtime than their peers in the private sector. The survey found that one in six public sector workers did unpaid overtime in 2023, amounting to £11bn, compared with one in nine in the private sector. The TUC’s campaign aims to encourage workers to take all the breaks they are entitled to, and finish their shifts on time. Explore more on these topics Teachers' workload Teaching Trade unions TUC Work & careers School funding Schools news Share Reuse this content Teaching unions have accused ministers of “daylight robbery” after a new survey by the Trades Union Congress revealed that teachers perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession. The TUC survey – published to mark its Work Your Proper Hours Day on Friday – found that two out of five teaching staff in the UK worked 26 hours for free each week, for a combined 5.5m hours a year. Patrick Roach, the general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, said it was “shameful evidence” that the government was relying on free labour rather than investing in schools and colleges. “The fact that teachers are losing out on average by £15,000 a year in unpaid overtime is nothing less than daylight robbery,” Roach said. Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report Read more “Teachers are seeing their workloads piled higher and higher, and with cuts to support staff and cuts to other children’s services, teachers are now working around the clock. “Our latest research found that more than half of teachers polled worked over 50 hours a week, with some working more than 70 hours. This is unsustainable and unacceptable. “World-class education cannot be built off the backs of overworked and underpaid teachers and headteachers.” The figures come as the Department for Education in England will miss its deadline for making its submission to the annual pay round, leading to protests by school leaders over the potential delays in reaching a settlement. The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said: “Most workers don’t mind putting in extra hours from time to time. But unpaid overtime is out of control for teachers. And nobody should be expected to work without pay for all the hours they do.” Overall, 3.8 million workers in the UK worked unpaid overtime last year, according to the survey, doing more than seven unpaid hours each week. The TUC estimated that was equivalent to £7,200 a year of wages going unpaid. Despite the concerns of the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg , public sector staff were more likely to put in unpaid overtime than their peers in the private sector. The survey found that one in six public sector workers did unpaid overtime in 2023, amounting to £11bn, compared with one in nine in the private sector. The TUC’s campaign aims to encourage workers to take all the breaks they are entitled to, and finish their shifts on time. Teaching unions have accused ministers of “daylight robbery” after a new survey by the Trades Union Congress revealed that teachers perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession. The TUC survey – published to mark its Work Your Proper Hours Day on Friday – found that two out of five teaching staff in the UK worked 26 hours for free each week, for a combined 5.5m hours a year. Patrick Roach, the general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, said it was “shameful evidence” that the government was relying on free labour rather than investing in schools and colleges. “The fact that teachers are losing out on average by £15,000 a year in unpaid overtime is nothing less than daylight robbery,” Roach said. Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report Read more “Teachers are seeing their workloads piled higher and higher, and with cuts to support staff and cuts to other children’s services, teachers are now working around the clock. “Our latest research found that more than half of teachers polled worked over 50 hours a week, with some working more than 70 hours. This is unsustainable and unacceptable. “World-class education cannot be built off the backs of overworked and underpaid teachers and headteachers.” The figures come as the Department for Education in England will miss its deadline for making its submission to the annual pay round, leading to protests by school leaders over the potential delays in reaching a settlement. The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said: “Most workers don’t mind putting in extra hours from time to time. But unpaid overtime is out of control for teachers. And nobody should be expected to work without pay for all the hours they do.” Overall, 3.8 million workers in the UK worked unpaid overtime last year, according to the survey, doing more than seven unpaid hours each week. The TUC estimated that was equivalent to £7,200 a year of wages going unpaid. Despite the concerns of the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg , public sector staff were more likely to put in unpaid overtime than their peers in the private sector. The survey found that one in six public sector workers did unpaid overtime in 2023, amounting to £11bn, compared with one in nine in the private sector. The TUC’s campaign aims to encourage workers to take all the breaks they are entitled to, and finish their shifts on time. Teaching unions have accused ministers of “daylight robbery” after a new survey by the Trades Union Congress revealed that teachers perform the most unpaid overtime of any profession. The TUC survey – published to mark its Work Your Proper Hours Day on Friday – found that two out of five teaching staff in the UK worked 26 hours for free each week, for a combined 5.5m hours a year. Patrick Roach, the general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, said it was “shameful evidence” that the government was relying on free labour rather than investing in schools and colleges. “The fact that teachers are losing out on average by £15,000 a year in unpaid overtime is nothing less than daylight robbery,” Roach said. Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report Read more Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report Read more Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report Read more Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report Ofsted fuelling ‘football manager culture’ of firing school heads, says report “Teachers are seeing their workloads piled higher and higher, and with cuts to support staff and cuts to other children’s services, teachers are now working around the clock. “Our latest research found that more than half of teachers polled worked over 50 hours a week, with some working more than 70 hours. This is unsustainable and unacceptable. “World-class education cannot be built off the backs of overworked and underpaid teachers and headteachers.” The figures come as the Department for Education in England will miss its deadline for making its submission to the annual pay round, leading to protests by school leaders over the potential delays in reaching a settlement. The TUC survey placed teachers ahead of chief executives, managers and directors for the number of hours they worked. Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said: “Most workers don’t mind putting in extra hours from time to time. But unpaid overtime is out of control for teachers. And nobody should be expected to work without pay for all the hours they do.” Overall, 3.8 million workers in the UK worked unpaid overtime last year, according to the survey, doing more than seven unpaid hours each week. The TUC estimated that was equivalent to £7,200 a year of wages going unpaid. Despite the concerns of the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg , public sector staff were more likely to put in unpaid overtime than their peers in the private sector. The survey found that one in six public sector workers did unpaid overtime in 2023, amounting to £11bn, compared with one in nine in the private sector. The TUC’s campaign aims to encourage workers to take all the breaks they are entitled to, and finish their shifts on time. Explore more on these topics Teachers' workload Teaching Trade unions TUC Work & careers School funding Schools news Share Reuse this content Teachers' workload Teaching Trade unions TUC Work & careers School funding Schools news |
London’s Tower Bridge closed due to pro-Palestine demonstration
City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X View image in fullscreen City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X This article is more than 1 year old London’s Tower Bridge closed due to pro-Palestine demonstration This article is more than 1 year old Historic landmark closed for about an hour as activists call for ceasefire to the conflict in Gaza Police were forced to close Tower Bridge to vehicles and pedestrians following a protest by pro-Palestine demonstrators. Some activists were seen lighting flares and waving Palestinian flags and calling for a ceasefire to the ongoing violence in Gaza, according to footage on social media. The landmark was closed by City of London police at about 5.30pm on Saturday before being reopened approximately an hour later. City of London police wrote on X: “Tower Bridge is currently closed due to protest activity. Officers are in attendance at the scene.” The force later wrote: “Tower Bridge reopened at around 6:25pm following an earlier protest. Thanks to @metpoliceuk for their assistance.” It comes after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign defended the right to lobby MPs “in large numbers”. Its director, Ben Jamal, said thousands of people were “shamefully” denied entry into parliament on Wednesday as they attempted to lobby MPs to vote in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza. The Times reported on Friday that Jamal told a crowd of demonstrators in the buildup to the protest on Wednesday: “We want so many of you to come that they will have to lock the doors of parliament itself.” In a statement, Jamal said: “This week over 80,000 people emailed their MPs ahead of the ceasefire debate. More than 3,000 came from across the UK to lobby their MPs in person, in one of the largest physical lobbies of parliament in history. “Shamefully, most were denied entry, ending up queueing for over four hours in the rain as extraordinary measures were introduced to limit the number who could meet their MPs face to face. “We are aware of reports that MPs’ safety was put to the speaker as a rationale as to why he should violate normal Commons procedures to allow the Labour amendment to be heard. “The issue of MPs’ security is serious but cannot be used to shield MPs from democratic accountability.” Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X View image in fullscreen City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X This article is more than 1 year old London’s Tower Bridge closed due to pro-Palestine demonstration This article is more than 1 year old Historic landmark closed for about an hour as activists call for ceasefire to the conflict in Gaza Police were forced to close Tower Bridge to vehicles and pedestrians following a protest by pro-Palestine demonstrators. Some activists were seen lighting flares and waving Palestinian flags and calling for a ceasefire to the ongoing violence in Gaza, according to footage on social media. The landmark was closed by City of London police at about 5.30pm on Saturday before being reopened approximately an hour later. City of London police wrote on X: “Tower Bridge is currently closed due to protest activity. Officers are in attendance at the scene.” The force later wrote: “Tower Bridge reopened at around 6:25pm following an earlier protest. Thanks to @metpoliceuk for their assistance.” It comes after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign defended the right to lobby MPs “in large numbers”. Its director, Ben Jamal, said thousands of people were “shamefully” denied entry into parliament on Wednesday as they attempted to lobby MPs to vote in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza. The Times reported on Friday that Jamal told a crowd of demonstrators in the buildup to the protest on Wednesday: “We want so many of you to come that they will have to lock the doors of parliament itself.” In a statement, Jamal said: “This week over 80,000 people emailed their MPs ahead of the ceasefire debate. More than 3,000 came from across the UK to lobby their MPs in person, in one of the largest physical lobbies of parliament in history. “Shamefully, most were denied entry, ending up queueing for over four hours in the rain as extraordinary measures were introduced to limit the number who could meet their MPs face to face. “We are aware of reports that MPs’ safety was put to the speaker as a rationale as to why he should violate normal Commons procedures to allow the Labour amendment to be heard. “The issue of MPs’ security is serious but cannot be used to shield MPs from democratic accountability.” Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X View image in fullscreen City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X View image in fullscreen City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X View image in fullscreen City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X View image in fullscreen City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X City of London police reopened the bridge at about 6.25pm on Saturday. Photograph: X This article is more than 1 year old London’s Tower Bridge closed due to pro-Palestine demonstration This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old London’s Tower Bridge closed due to pro-Palestine demonstration This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old London’s Tower Bridge closed due to pro-Palestine demonstration This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Historic landmark closed for about an hour as activists call for ceasefire to the conflict in Gaza Historic landmark closed for about an hour as activists call for ceasefire to the conflict in Gaza Historic landmark closed for about an hour as activists call for ceasefire to the conflict in Gaza Police were forced to close Tower Bridge to vehicles and pedestrians following a protest by pro-Palestine demonstrators. Some activists were seen lighting flares and waving Palestinian flags and calling for a ceasefire to the ongoing violence in Gaza, according to footage on social media. The landmark was closed by City of London police at about 5.30pm on Saturday before being reopened approximately an hour later. City of London police wrote on X: “Tower Bridge is currently closed due to protest activity. Officers are in attendance at the scene.” The force later wrote: “Tower Bridge reopened at around 6:25pm following an earlier protest. Thanks to @metpoliceuk for their assistance.” It comes after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign defended the right to lobby MPs “in large numbers”. Its director, Ben Jamal, said thousands of people were “shamefully” denied entry into parliament on Wednesday as they attempted to lobby MPs to vote in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza. The Times reported on Friday that Jamal told a crowd of demonstrators in the buildup to the protest on Wednesday: “We want so many of you to come that they will have to lock the doors of parliament itself.” In a statement, Jamal said: “This week over 80,000 people emailed their MPs ahead of the ceasefire debate. More than 3,000 came from across the UK to lobby their MPs in person, in one of the largest physical lobbies of parliament in history. “Shamefully, most were denied entry, ending up queueing for over four hours in the rain as extraordinary measures were introduced to limit the number who could meet their MPs face to face. “We are aware of reports that MPs’ safety was put to the speaker as a rationale as to why he should violate normal Commons procedures to allow the Labour amendment to be heard. “The issue of MPs’ security is serious but cannot be used to shield MPs from democratic accountability.” Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content Police were forced to close Tower Bridge to vehicles and pedestrians following a protest by pro-Palestine demonstrators. Some activists were seen lighting flares and waving Palestinian flags and calling for a ceasefire to the ongoing violence in Gaza, according to footage on social media. The landmark was closed by City of London police at about 5.30pm on Saturday before being reopened approximately an hour later. City of London police wrote on X: “Tower Bridge is currently closed due to protest activity. Officers are in attendance at the scene.” The force later wrote: “Tower Bridge reopened at around 6:25pm following an earlier protest. Thanks to @metpoliceuk for their assistance.” It comes after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign defended the right to lobby MPs “in large numbers”. Its director, Ben Jamal, said thousands of people were “shamefully” denied entry into parliament on Wednesday as they attempted to lobby MPs to vote in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza. The Times reported on Friday that Jamal told a crowd of demonstrators in the buildup to the protest on Wednesday: “We want so many of you to come that they will have to lock the doors of parliament itself.” In a statement, Jamal said: “This week over 80,000 people emailed their MPs ahead of the ceasefire debate. More than 3,000 came from across the UK to lobby their MPs in person, in one of the largest physical lobbies of parliament in history. “Shamefully, most were denied entry, ending up queueing for over four hours in the rain as extraordinary measures were introduced to limit the number who could meet their MPs face to face. “We are aware of reports that MPs’ safety was put to the speaker as a rationale as to why he should violate normal Commons procedures to allow the Labour amendment to be heard. “The issue of MPs’ security is serious but cannot be used to shield MPs from democratic accountability.” Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content Police were forced to close Tower Bridge to vehicles and pedestrians following a protest by pro-Palestine demonstrators. Some activists were seen lighting flares and waving Palestinian flags and calling for a ceasefire to the ongoing violence in Gaza, according to footage on social media. The landmark was closed by City of London police at about 5.30pm on Saturday before being reopened approximately an hour later. City of London police wrote on X: “Tower Bridge is currently closed due to protest activity. Officers are in attendance at the scene.” The force later wrote: “Tower Bridge reopened at around 6:25pm following an earlier protest. Thanks to @metpoliceuk for their assistance.” It comes after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign defended the right to lobby MPs “in large numbers”. Its director, Ben Jamal, said thousands of people were “shamefully” denied entry into parliament on Wednesday as they attempted to lobby MPs to vote in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza. The Times reported on Friday that Jamal told a crowd of demonstrators in the buildup to the protest on Wednesday: “We want so many of you to come that they will have to lock the doors of parliament itself.” In a statement, Jamal said: “This week over 80,000 people emailed their MPs ahead of the ceasefire debate. More than 3,000 came from across the UK to lobby their MPs in person, in one of the largest physical lobbies of parliament in history. “Shamefully, most were denied entry, ending up queueing for over four hours in the rain as extraordinary measures were introduced to limit the number who could meet their MPs face to face. “We are aware of reports that MPs’ safety was put to the speaker as a rationale as to why he should violate normal Commons procedures to allow the Labour amendment to be heard. “The issue of MPs’ security is serious but cannot be used to shield MPs from democratic accountability.” Police were forced to close Tower Bridge to vehicles and pedestrians following a protest by pro-Palestine demonstrators. Some activists were seen lighting flares and waving Palestinian flags and calling for a ceasefire to the ongoing violence in Gaza, according to footage on social media. The landmark was closed by City of London police at about 5.30pm on Saturday before being reopened approximately an hour later. City of London police wrote on X: “Tower Bridge is currently closed due to protest activity. Officers are in attendance at the scene.” The force later wrote: “Tower Bridge reopened at around 6:25pm following an earlier protest. Thanks to @metpoliceuk for their assistance.” It comes after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign defended the right to lobby MPs “in large numbers”. Its director, Ben Jamal, said thousands of people were “shamefully” denied entry into parliament on Wednesday as they attempted to lobby MPs to vote in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza. The Times reported on Friday that Jamal told a crowd of demonstrators in the buildup to the protest on Wednesday: “We want so many of you to come that they will have to lock the doors of parliament itself.” In a statement, Jamal said: “This week over 80,000 people emailed their MPs ahead of the ceasefire debate. More than 3,000 came from across the UK to lobby their MPs in person, in one of the largest physical lobbies of parliament in history. “Shamefully, most were denied entry, ending up queueing for over four hours in the rain as extraordinary measures were introduced to limit the number who could meet their MPs face to face. “We are aware of reports that MPs’ safety was put to the speaker as a rationale as to why he should violate normal Commons procedures to allow the Labour amendment to be heard. “The issue of MPs’ security is serious but cannot be used to shield MPs from democratic accountability.” Police were forced to close Tower Bridge to vehicles and pedestrians following a protest by pro-Palestine demonstrators. Some activists were seen lighting flares and waving Palestinian flags and calling for a ceasefire to the ongoing violence in Gaza, according to footage on social media. The landmark was closed by City of London police at about 5.30pm on Saturday before being reopened approximately an hour later. City of London police wrote on X: “Tower Bridge is currently closed due to protest activity. Officers are in attendance at the scene.” The force later wrote: “Tower Bridge reopened at around 6:25pm following an earlier protest. Thanks to @metpoliceuk for their assistance.” It comes after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign defended the right to lobby MPs “in large numbers”. Its director, Ben Jamal, said thousands of people were “shamefully” denied entry into parliament on Wednesday as they attempted to lobby MPs to vote in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza. The Times reported on Friday that Jamal told a crowd of demonstrators in the buildup to the protest on Wednesday: “We want so many of you to come that they will have to lock the doors of parliament itself.” In a statement, Jamal said: “This week over 80,000 people emailed their MPs ahead of the ceasefire debate. More than 3,000 came from across the UK to lobby their MPs in person, in one of the largest physical lobbies of parliament in history. “Shamefully, most were denied entry, ending up queueing for over four hours in the rain as extraordinary measures were introduced to limit the number who could meet their MPs face to face. “We are aware of reports that MPs’ safety was put to the speaker as a rationale as to why he should violate normal Commons procedures to allow the Labour amendment to be heard. “The issue of MPs’ security is serious but cannot be used to shield MPs from democratic accountability.” Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war news Share Reuse this content London Protest Israel-Gaza war news |
Starmer accuses Sunak of harbouring ‘extremists’ in Islamophobia row
Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA This article is more than 1 year old Starmer accuses Sunak of harbouring ‘extremists’ in Islamophobia row This article is more than 1 year old Labour leader condemns PM and criticises Suella Braverman’s ‘extreme rhetoric’ as Lee Anderson suspended over London mayor comments Keir Starmer has accused Rishi Sunak of harbouring “extremists in his party” after a prominent MP was suspended for inflammatory comments about the London mayor, and other senior Conservatives faced condemnation over “toxic” rhetoric. The Labour leader spoke out on Saturday night after the suspension of Lee Anderson , the party’s former deputy chairman, who had claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of “Islamists”. While Tory sources initially defended Anderson, action was taken amid a wave of anger from within the party that plunged it into a fresh bout of infighting. Anderson’s remarks followed soon after an article by former home secretary Suella Braverman in which she stated: “The Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge.” Meanwhile, at a rightwing conference in the US, former prime minister Liz Truss remained silent during an interview in which far-right figure Tommy Robinson was described as a “hero”. Speaking to the Observer , Starmer accused Sunak of serious weakness. “It’s right that Lee Anderson has lost the whip after this appalling racist and Islamophobic outburst,” he said. “But what does it say about the prime minister’s judgment that he made Lee Anderson deputy chairman of his party? “Whether it is Liz Truss staying silent on Tommy Robinson or Suella Braverman’s extreme rhetoric, Rishi Sunak’s weakness means Tory MPs can act with impunity. This isn’t just embarrassing for the Conservative party, it emboldens the worst forces in our politics. “Rishi Sunak needs to get a grip and take on the extremists in his party. The Tories may be getting more and more desperate as the election approaches, but Rishi Sunak has a responsibility to stop this slide into ever more toxic rhetoric.” Starmer spoke out after a growing cross-party backlash over Anderson’s remarks, which were made on Friday. As well as saying Islamists controlled Khan, Anderson said that the London mayor had “given our capital city away to his mates”. He will now no longer sit as a Tory MP. However, no action is expected against Truss or Braverman. A Conservative source had initially defended Anderson, saying he was “simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as police and crime commissioner for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently”. While there were some Tory concerns that suspending Anderson would see him join Reform UK, the successor to the Brexit party, which is gaining support on the right , senior figures stepped in to say that the party would not “trade our values” out of fear of his possible defection. Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, had already quit as deputy chair of the Conservative party after he decided to rebel against Sunak’s Rwanda bill. It is understood that Anderson was not suspended over his claims that there were extremist elements in recent protests, but because of the way he had made specific allegations against Khan. The Tories had previously criticised Labour for being too slow to disown a candidate who repeated a conspiracy theory about the 7 October attacks on Israel. Anderson was given the opportunity to apologise and avoid suspension, but he refused to do so. Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, is among those said to have been angered by the remarks. The pressure increased significantly when Nusrat Ghani, a serving minister and the first female Muslim minister to speak from the House of Commons dispatch box, revealed that she had confronted Anderson over his comments. “I have spoken to Lee Anderson,” she wrote on X . “I’ve called out Islamic extremism (and been attacked by hard left, far right and Islamists). I don’t for one moment believe that Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists. To say so, is both foolish and dangerous. Frankly this is all so tiring.” Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Read more Before the suspension was announced, Khan accused Anderson of Islamophobia and racism, while also accusing the prime minister of a “deafening silence” after the comments. “I am unclear why Rishi Sunak, why members of his cabinet aren’t calling this out and aren’t condemning this,” he said. “It’s like they are complicit in this sort of racism. The message it sends is Muslims are fair game when it comes to racism and anti-Muslim hatred.” In a statement, Anderson said: “Following a call with the chief whip, I understand the difficult position that I have put both he and the prime minister in with regard to my comments. I fully accept that they had no option but to suspend the whip in these circumstances.” Margot James, a former Tory minister on the liberal wing of the party, said Anderson should not have been in the party in the first place. “At last, the whip removed from Anderson,” she said. “He should never have been a Conservative MP – let alone a vice-chair of the party.” Serving senior ministers were in despair last night over the behaviour of several senior party figures over the last week, with one cabinet minister describing it as an “awful” few days that have yet again plunged the Tories into infighting. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair, said it was “deeply concerning” that Anderson could have retained the Tory whip and continued to sit as a Tory MP had he apologised for comments she described as “unambiguously Islamophobic, divisive and damaging”. She also called for action against Truss and Braverman. “It’s clear the prime minister still needs to do more to tackle extremists in his party, with former prime minister Liz Truss and former home secretary Suella Braverman still unashamedly giving voice to hateful commentary and conspiracy theories.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Islamophobia The Observer Sadiq Khan London Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour news Share Reuse this content Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA This article is more than 1 year old Starmer accuses Sunak of harbouring ‘extremists’ in Islamophobia row This article is more than 1 year old Labour leader condemns PM and criticises Suella Braverman’s ‘extreme rhetoric’ as Lee Anderson suspended over London mayor comments Keir Starmer has accused Rishi Sunak of harbouring “extremists in his party” after a prominent MP was suspended for inflammatory comments about the London mayor, and other senior Conservatives faced condemnation over “toxic” rhetoric. The Labour leader spoke out on Saturday night after the suspension of Lee Anderson , the party’s former deputy chairman, who had claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of “Islamists”. While Tory sources initially defended Anderson, action was taken amid a wave of anger from within the party that plunged it into a fresh bout of infighting. Anderson’s remarks followed soon after an article by former home secretary Suella Braverman in which she stated: “The Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge.” Meanwhile, at a rightwing conference in the US, former prime minister Liz Truss remained silent during an interview in which far-right figure Tommy Robinson was described as a “hero”. Speaking to the Observer , Starmer accused Sunak of serious weakness. “It’s right that Lee Anderson has lost the whip after this appalling racist and Islamophobic outburst,” he said. “But what does it say about the prime minister’s judgment that he made Lee Anderson deputy chairman of his party? “Whether it is Liz Truss staying silent on Tommy Robinson or Suella Braverman’s extreme rhetoric, Rishi Sunak’s weakness means Tory MPs can act with impunity. This isn’t just embarrassing for the Conservative party, it emboldens the worst forces in our politics. “Rishi Sunak needs to get a grip and take on the extremists in his party. The Tories may be getting more and more desperate as the election approaches, but Rishi Sunak has a responsibility to stop this slide into ever more toxic rhetoric.” Starmer spoke out after a growing cross-party backlash over Anderson’s remarks, which were made on Friday. As well as saying Islamists controlled Khan, Anderson said that the London mayor had “given our capital city away to his mates”. He will now no longer sit as a Tory MP. However, no action is expected against Truss or Braverman. A Conservative source had initially defended Anderson, saying he was “simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as police and crime commissioner for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently”. While there were some Tory concerns that suspending Anderson would see him join Reform UK, the successor to the Brexit party, which is gaining support on the right , senior figures stepped in to say that the party would not “trade our values” out of fear of his possible defection. Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, had already quit as deputy chair of the Conservative party after he decided to rebel against Sunak’s Rwanda bill. It is understood that Anderson was not suspended over his claims that there were extremist elements in recent protests, but because of the way he had made specific allegations against Khan. The Tories had previously criticised Labour for being too slow to disown a candidate who repeated a conspiracy theory about the 7 October attacks on Israel. Anderson was given the opportunity to apologise and avoid suspension, but he refused to do so. Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, is among those said to have been angered by the remarks. The pressure increased significantly when Nusrat Ghani, a serving minister and the first female Muslim minister to speak from the House of Commons dispatch box, revealed that she had confronted Anderson over his comments. “I have spoken to Lee Anderson,” she wrote on X . “I’ve called out Islamic extremism (and been attacked by hard left, far right and Islamists). I don’t for one moment believe that Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists. To say so, is both foolish and dangerous. Frankly this is all so tiring.” Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Read more Before the suspension was announced, Khan accused Anderson of Islamophobia and racism, while also accusing the prime minister of a “deafening silence” after the comments. “I am unclear why Rishi Sunak, why members of his cabinet aren’t calling this out and aren’t condemning this,” he said. “It’s like they are complicit in this sort of racism. The message it sends is Muslims are fair game when it comes to racism and anti-Muslim hatred.” In a statement, Anderson said: “Following a call with the chief whip, I understand the difficult position that I have put both he and the prime minister in with regard to my comments. I fully accept that they had no option but to suspend the whip in these circumstances.” Margot James, a former Tory minister on the liberal wing of the party, said Anderson should not have been in the party in the first place. “At last, the whip removed from Anderson,” she said. “He should never have been a Conservative MP – let alone a vice-chair of the party.” Serving senior ministers were in despair last night over the behaviour of several senior party figures over the last week, with one cabinet minister describing it as an “awful” few days that have yet again plunged the Tories into infighting. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair, said it was “deeply concerning” that Anderson could have retained the Tory whip and continued to sit as a Tory MP had he apologised for comments she described as “unambiguously Islamophobic, divisive and damaging”. She also called for action against Truss and Braverman. “It’s clear the prime minister still needs to do more to tackle extremists in his party, with former prime minister Liz Truss and former home secretary Suella Braverman still unashamedly giving voice to hateful commentary and conspiracy theories.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Islamophobia The Observer Sadiq Khan London Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour news Share Reuse this content Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA Lee Anderson, the former Tory party deputy chairman, claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA This article is more than 1 year old Starmer accuses Sunak of harbouring ‘extremists’ in Islamophobia row This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Starmer accuses Sunak of harbouring ‘extremists’ in Islamophobia row This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Starmer accuses Sunak of harbouring ‘extremists’ in Islamophobia row This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Labour leader condemns PM and criticises Suella Braverman’s ‘extreme rhetoric’ as Lee Anderson suspended over London mayor comments Labour leader condemns PM and criticises Suella Braverman’s ‘extreme rhetoric’ as Lee Anderson suspended over London mayor comments Labour leader condemns PM and criticises Suella Braverman’s ‘extreme rhetoric’ as Lee Anderson suspended over London mayor comments Keir Starmer has accused Rishi Sunak of harbouring “extremists in his party” after a prominent MP was suspended for inflammatory comments about the London mayor, and other senior Conservatives faced condemnation over “toxic” rhetoric. The Labour leader spoke out on Saturday night after the suspension of Lee Anderson , the party’s former deputy chairman, who had claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of “Islamists”. While Tory sources initially defended Anderson, action was taken amid a wave of anger from within the party that plunged it into a fresh bout of infighting. Anderson’s remarks followed soon after an article by former home secretary Suella Braverman in which she stated: “The Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge.” Meanwhile, at a rightwing conference in the US, former prime minister Liz Truss remained silent during an interview in which far-right figure Tommy Robinson was described as a “hero”. Speaking to the Observer , Starmer accused Sunak of serious weakness. “It’s right that Lee Anderson has lost the whip after this appalling racist and Islamophobic outburst,” he said. “But what does it say about the prime minister’s judgment that he made Lee Anderson deputy chairman of his party? “Whether it is Liz Truss staying silent on Tommy Robinson or Suella Braverman’s extreme rhetoric, Rishi Sunak’s weakness means Tory MPs can act with impunity. This isn’t just embarrassing for the Conservative party, it emboldens the worst forces in our politics. “Rishi Sunak needs to get a grip and take on the extremists in his party. The Tories may be getting more and more desperate as the election approaches, but Rishi Sunak has a responsibility to stop this slide into ever more toxic rhetoric.” Starmer spoke out after a growing cross-party backlash over Anderson’s remarks, which were made on Friday. As well as saying Islamists controlled Khan, Anderson said that the London mayor had “given our capital city away to his mates”. He will now no longer sit as a Tory MP. However, no action is expected against Truss or Braverman. A Conservative source had initially defended Anderson, saying he was “simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as police and crime commissioner for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently”. While there were some Tory concerns that suspending Anderson would see him join Reform UK, the successor to the Brexit party, which is gaining support on the right , senior figures stepped in to say that the party would not “trade our values” out of fear of his possible defection. Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, had already quit as deputy chair of the Conservative party after he decided to rebel against Sunak’s Rwanda bill. It is understood that Anderson was not suspended over his claims that there were extremist elements in recent protests, but because of the way he had made specific allegations against Khan. The Tories had previously criticised Labour for being too slow to disown a candidate who repeated a conspiracy theory about the 7 October attacks on Israel. Anderson was given the opportunity to apologise and avoid suspension, but he refused to do so. Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, is among those said to have been angered by the remarks. The pressure increased significantly when Nusrat Ghani, a serving minister and the first female Muslim minister to speak from the House of Commons dispatch box, revealed that she had confronted Anderson over his comments. “I have spoken to Lee Anderson,” she wrote on X . “I’ve called out Islamic extremism (and been attacked by hard left, far right and Islamists). I don’t for one moment believe that Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists. To say so, is both foolish and dangerous. Frankly this is all so tiring.” Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Read more Before the suspension was announced, Khan accused Anderson of Islamophobia and racism, while also accusing the prime minister of a “deafening silence” after the comments. “I am unclear why Rishi Sunak, why members of his cabinet aren’t calling this out and aren’t condemning this,” he said. “It’s like they are complicit in this sort of racism. The message it sends is Muslims are fair game when it comes to racism and anti-Muslim hatred.” In a statement, Anderson said: “Following a call with the chief whip, I understand the difficult position that I have put both he and the prime minister in with regard to my comments. I fully accept that they had no option but to suspend the whip in these circumstances.” Margot James, a former Tory minister on the liberal wing of the party, said Anderson should not have been in the party in the first place. “At last, the whip removed from Anderson,” she said. “He should never have been a Conservative MP – let alone a vice-chair of the party.” Serving senior ministers were in despair last night over the behaviour of several senior party figures over the last week, with one cabinet minister describing it as an “awful” few days that have yet again plunged the Tories into infighting. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair, said it was “deeply concerning” that Anderson could have retained the Tory whip and continued to sit as a Tory MP had he apologised for comments she described as “unambiguously Islamophobic, divisive and damaging”. She also called for action against Truss and Braverman. “It’s clear the prime minister still needs to do more to tackle extremists in his party, with former prime minister Liz Truss and former home secretary Suella Braverman still unashamedly giving voice to hateful commentary and conspiracy theories.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Islamophobia The Observer Sadiq Khan London Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour news Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer has accused Rishi Sunak of harbouring “extremists in his party” after a prominent MP was suspended for inflammatory comments about the London mayor, and other senior Conservatives faced condemnation over “toxic” rhetoric. The Labour leader spoke out on Saturday night after the suspension of Lee Anderson , the party’s former deputy chairman, who had claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of “Islamists”. While Tory sources initially defended Anderson, action was taken amid a wave of anger from within the party that plunged it into a fresh bout of infighting. Anderson’s remarks followed soon after an article by former home secretary Suella Braverman in which she stated: “The Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge.” Meanwhile, at a rightwing conference in the US, former prime minister Liz Truss remained silent during an interview in which far-right figure Tommy Robinson was described as a “hero”. Speaking to the Observer , Starmer accused Sunak of serious weakness. “It’s right that Lee Anderson has lost the whip after this appalling racist and Islamophobic outburst,” he said. “But what does it say about the prime minister’s judgment that he made Lee Anderson deputy chairman of his party? “Whether it is Liz Truss staying silent on Tommy Robinson or Suella Braverman’s extreme rhetoric, Rishi Sunak’s weakness means Tory MPs can act with impunity. This isn’t just embarrassing for the Conservative party, it emboldens the worst forces in our politics. “Rishi Sunak needs to get a grip and take on the extremists in his party. The Tories may be getting more and more desperate as the election approaches, but Rishi Sunak has a responsibility to stop this slide into ever more toxic rhetoric.” Starmer spoke out after a growing cross-party backlash over Anderson’s remarks, which were made on Friday. As well as saying Islamists controlled Khan, Anderson said that the London mayor had “given our capital city away to his mates”. He will now no longer sit as a Tory MP. However, no action is expected against Truss or Braverman. A Conservative source had initially defended Anderson, saying he was “simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as police and crime commissioner for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently”. While there were some Tory concerns that suspending Anderson would see him join Reform UK, the successor to the Brexit party, which is gaining support on the right , senior figures stepped in to say that the party would not “trade our values” out of fear of his possible defection. Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, had already quit as deputy chair of the Conservative party after he decided to rebel against Sunak’s Rwanda bill. It is understood that Anderson was not suspended over his claims that there were extremist elements in recent protests, but because of the way he had made specific allegations against Khan. The Tories had previously criticised Labour for being too slow to disown a candidate who repeated a conspiracy theory about the 7 October attacks on Israel. Anderson was given the opportunity to apologise and avoid suspension, but he refused to do so. Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, is among those said to have been angered by the remarks. The pressure increased significantly when Nusrat Ghani, a serving minister and the first female Muslim minister to speak from the House of Commons dispatch box, revealed that she had confronted Anderson over his comments. “I have spoken to Lee Anderson,” she wrote on X . “I’ve called out Islamic extremism (and been attacked by hard left, far right and Islamists). I don’t for one moment believe that Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists. To say so, is both foolish and dangerous. Frankly this is all so tiring.” Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Read more Before the suspension was announced, Khan accused Anderson of Islamophobia and racism, while also accusing the prime minister of a “deafening silence” after the comments. “I am unclear why Rishi Sunak, why members of his cabinet aren’t calling this out and aren’t condemning this,” he said. “It’s like they are complicit in this sort of racism. The message it sends is Muslims are fair game when it comes to racism and anti-Muslim hatred.” In a statement, Anderson said: “Following a call with the chief whip, I understand the difficult position that I have put both he and the prime minister in with regard to my comments. I fully accept that they had no option but to suspend the whip in these circumstances.” Margot James, a former Tory minister on the liberal wing of the party, said Anderson should not have been in the party in the first place. “At last, the whip removed from Anderson,” she said. “He should never have been a Conservative MP – let alone a vice-chair of the party.” Serving senior ministers were in despair last night over the behaviour of several senior party figures over the last week, with one cabinet minister describing it as an “awful” few days that have yet again plunged the Tories into infighting. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair, said it was “deeply concerning” that Anderson could have retained the Tory whip and continued to sit as a Tory MP had he apologised for comments she described as “unambiguously Islamophobic, divisive and damaging”. She also called for action against Truss and Braverman. “It’s clear the prime minister still needs to do more to tackle extremists in his party, with former prime minister Liz Truss and former home secretary Suella Braverman still unashamedly giving voice to hateful commentary and conspiracy theories.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Islamophobia The Observer Sadiq Khan London Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour news Share Reuse this content Keir Starmer has accused Rishi Sunak of harbouring “extremists in his party” after a prominent MP was suspended for inflammatory comments about the London mayor, and other senior Conservatives faced condemnation over “toxic” rhetoric. The Labour leader spoke out on Saturday night after the suspension of Lee Anderson , the party’s former deputy chairman, who had claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of “Islamists”. While Tory sources initially defended Anderson, action was taken amid a wave of anger from within the party that plunged it into a fresh bout of infighting. Anderson’s remarks followed soon after an article by former home secretary Suella Braverman in which she stated: “The Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge.” Meanwhile, at a rightwing conference in the US, former prime minister Liz Truss remained silent during an interview in which far-right figure Tommy Robinson was described as a “hero”. Speaking to the Observer , Starmer accused Sunak of serious weakness. “It’s right that Lee Anderson has lost the whip after this appalling racist and Islamophobic outburst,” he said. “But what does it say about the prime minister’s judgment that he made Lee Anderson deputy chairman of his party? “Whether it is Liz Truss staying silent on Tommy Robinson or Suella Braverman’s extreme rhetoric, Rishi Sunak’s weakness means Tory MPs can act with impunity. This isn’t just embarrassing for the Conservative party, it emboldens the worst forces in our politics. “Rishi Sunak needs to get a grip and take on the extremists in his party. The Tories may be getting more and more desperate as the election approaches, but Rishi Sunak has a responsibility to stop this slide into ever more toxic rhetoric.” Starmer spoke out after a growing cross-party backlash over Anderson’s remarks, which were made on Friday. As well as saying Islamists controlled Khan, Anderson said that the London mayor had “given our capital city away to his mates”. He will now no longer sit as a Tory MP. However, no action is expected against Truss or Braverman. A Conservative source had initially defended Anderson, saying he was “simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as police and crime commissioner for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently”. While there were some Tory concerns that suspending Anderson would see him join Reform UK, the successor to the Brexit party, which is gaining support on the right , senior figures stepped in to say that the party would not “trade our values” out of fear of his possible defection. Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, had already quit as deputy chair of the Conservative party after he decided to rebel against Sunak’s Rwanda bill. It is understood that Anderson was not suspended over his claims that there were extremist elements in recent protests, but because of the way he had made specific allegations against Khan. The Tories had previously criticised Labour for being too slow to disown a candidate who repeated a conspiracy theory about the 7 October attacks on Israel. Anderson was given the opportunity to apologise and avoid suspension, but he refused to do so. Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, is among those said to have been angered by the remarks. The pressure increased significantly when Nusrat Ghani, a serving minister and the first female Muslim minister to speak from the House of Commons dispatch box, revealed that she had confronted Anderson over his comments. “I have spoken to Lee Anderson,” she wrote on X . “I’ve called out Islamic extremism (and been attacked by hard left, far right and Islamists). I don’t for one moment believe that Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists. To say so, is both foolish and dangerous. Frankly this is all so tiring.” Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Read more Before the suspension was announced, Khan accused Anderson of Islamophobia and racism, while also accusing the prime minister of a “deafening silence” after the comments. “I am unclear why Rishi Sunak, why members of his cabinet aren’t calling this out and aren’t condemning this,” he said. “It’s like they are complicit in this sort of racism. The message it sends is Muslims are fair game when it comes to racism and anti-Muslim hatred.” In a statement, Anderson said: “Following a call with the chief whip, I understand the difficult position that I have put both he and the prime minister in with regard to my comments. I fully accept that they had no option but to suspend the whip in these circumstances.” Margot James, a former Tory minister on the liberal wing of the party, said Anderson should not have been in the party in the first place. “At last, the whip removed from Anderson,” she said. “He should never have been a Conservative MP – let alone a vice-chair of the party.” Serving senior ministers were in despair last night over the behaviour of several senior party figures over the last week, with one cabinet minister describing it as an “awful” few days that have yet again plunged the Tories into infighting. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair, said it was “deeply concerning” that Anderson could have retained the Tory whip and continued to sit as a Tory MP had he apologised for comments she described as “unambiguously Islamophobic, divisive and damaging”. She also called for action against Truss and Braverman. “It’s clear the prime minister still needs to do more to tackle extremists in his party, with former prime minister Liz Truss and former home secretary Suella Braverman still unashamedly giving voice to hateful commentary and conspiracy theories.” Keir Starmer has accused Rishi Sunak of harbouring “extremists in his party” after a prominent MP was suspended for inflammatory comments about the London mayor, and other senior Conservatives faced condemnation over “toxic” rhetoric. The Labour leader spoke out on Saturday night after the suspension of Lee Anderson , the party’s former deputy chairman, who had claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of “Islamists”. While Tory sources initially defended Anderson, action was taken amid a wave of anger from within the party that plunged it into a fresh bout of infighting. Anderson’s remarks followed soon after an article by former home secretary Suella Braverman in which she stated: “The Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge.” Meanwhile, at a rightwing conference in the US, former prime minister Liz Truss remained silent during an interview in which far-right figure Tommy Robinson was described as a “hero”. Speaking to the Observer , Starmer accused Sunak of serious weakness. “It’s right that Lee Anderson has lost the whip after this appalling racist and Islamophobic outburst,” he said. “But what does it say about the prime minister’s judgment that he made Lee Anderson deputy chairman of his party? “Whether it is Liz Truss staying silent on Tommy Robinson or Suella Braverman’s extreme rhetoric, Rishi Sunak’s weakness means Tory MPs can act with impunity. This isn’t just embarrassing for the Conservative party, it emboldens the worst forces in our politics. “Rishi Sunak needs to get a grip and take on the extremists in his party. The Tories may be getting more and more desperate as the election approaches, but Rishi Sunak has a responsibility to stop this slide into ever more toxic rhetoric.” Starmer spoke out after a growing cross-party backlash over Anderson’s remarks, which were made on Friday. As well as saying Islamists controlled Khan, Anderson said that the London mayor had “given our capital city away to his mates”. He will now no longer sit as a Tory MP. However, no action is expected against Truss or Braverman. A Conservative source had initially defended Anderson, saying he was “simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as police and crime commissioner for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently”. While there were some Tory concerns that suspending Anderson would see him join Reform UK, the successor to the Brexit party, which is gaining support on the right , senior figures stepped in to say that the party would not “trade our values” out of fear of his possible defection. Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, had already quit as deputy chair of the Conservative party after he decided to rebel against Sunak’s Rwanda bill. It is understood that Anderson was not suspended over his claims that there were extremist elements in recent protests, but because of the way he had made specific allegations against Khan. The Tories had previously criticised Labour for being too slow to disown a candidate who repeated a conspiracy theory about the 7 October attacks on Israel. Anderson was given the opportunity to apologise and avoid suspension, but he refused to do so. Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, is among those said to have been angered by the remarks. The pressure increased significantly when Nusrat Ghani, a serving minister and the first female Muslim minister to speak from the House of Commons dispatch box, revealed that she had confronted Anderson over his comments. “I have spoken to Lee Anderson,” she wrote on X . “I’ve called out Islamic extremism (and been attacked by hard left, far right and Islamists). I don’t for one moment believe that Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists. To say so, is both foolish and dangerous. Frankly this is all so tiring.” Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Read more Before the suspension was announced, Khan accused Anderson of Islamophobia and racism, while also accusing the prime minister of a “deafening silence” after the comments. “I am unclear why Rishi Sunak, why members of his cabinet aren’t calling this out and aren’t condemning this,” he said. “It’s like they are complicit in this sort of racism. The message it sends is Muslims are fair game when it comes to racism and anti-Muslim hatred.” In a statement, Anderson said: “Following a call with the chief whip, I understand the difficult position that I have put both he and the prime minister in with regard to my comments. I fully accept that they had no option but to suspend the whip in these circumstances.” Margot James, a former Tory minister on the liberal wing of the party, said Anderson should not have been in the party in the first place. “At last, the whip removed from Anderson,” she said. “He should never have been a Conservative MP – let alone a vice-chair of the party.” Serving senior ministers were in despair last night over the behaviour of several senior party figures over the last week, with one cabinet minister describing it as an “awful” few days that have yet again plunged the Tories into infighting. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair, said it was “deeply concerning” that Anderson could have retained the Tory whip and continued to sit as a Tory MP had he apologised for comments she described as “unambiguously Islamophobic, divisive and damaging”. She also called for action against Truss and Braverman. “It’s clear the prime minister still needs to do more to tackle extremists in his party, with former prime minister Liz Truss and former home secretary Suella Braverman still unashamedly giving voice to hateful commentary and conspiracy theories.” Keir Starmer has accused Rishi Sunak of harbouring “extremists in his party” after a prominent MP was suspended for inflammatory comments about the London mayor, and other senior Conservatives faced condemnation over “toxic” rhetoric. The Labour leader spoke out on Saturday night after the suspension of Lee Anderson , the party’s former deputy chairman, who had claimed London mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of “Islamists”. While Tory sources initially defended Anderson, action was taken amid a wave of anger from within the party that plunged it into a fresh bout of infighting. Anderson’s remarks followed soon after an article by former home secretary Suella Braverman in which she stated: “The Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge.” Meanwhile, at a rightwing conference in the US, former prime minister Liz Truss remained silent during an interview in which far-right figure Tommy Robinson was described as a “hero”. Speaking to the Observer , Starmer accused Sunak of serious weakness. “It’s right that Lee Anderson has lost the whip after this appalling racist and Islamophobic outburst,” he said. “But what does it say about the prime minister’s judgment that he made Lee Anderson deputy chairman of his party? “Whether it is Liz Truss staying silent on Tommy Robinson or Suella Braverman’s extreme rhetoric, Rishi Sunak’s weakness means Tory MPs can act with impunity. This isn’t just embarrassing for the Conservative party, it emboldens the worst forces in our politics. “Rishi Sunak needs to get a grip and take on the extremists in his party. The Tories may be getting more and more desperate as the election approaches, but Rishi Sunak has a responsibility to stop this slide into ever more toxic rhetoric.” Starmer spoke out after a growing cross-party backlash over Anderson’s remarks, which were made on Friday. As well as saying Islamists controlled Khan, Anderson said that the London mayor had “given our capital city away to his mates”. He will now no longer sit as a Tory MP. However, no action is expected against Truss or Braverman. A Conservative source had initially defended Anderson, saying he was “simply making the point that the mayor, in his capacity as police and crime commissioner for London, has abjectly failed to get a grip on the appalling Islamist marches we have seen in London recently”. While there were some Tory concerns that suspending Anderson would see him join Reform UK, the successor to the Brexit party, which is gaining support on the right , senior figures stepped in to say that the party would not “trade our values” out of fear of his possible defection. Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, had already quit as deputy chair of the Conservative party after he decided to rebel against Sunak’s Rwanda bill. It is understood that Anderson was not suspended over his claims that there were extremist elements in recent protests, but because of the way he had made specific allegations against Khan. The Tories had previously criticised Labour for being too slow to disown a candidate who repeated a conspiracy theory about the 7 October attacks on Israel. Anderson was given the opportunity to apologise and avoid suspension, but he refused to do so. Sajid Javid, the former health secretary, is among those said to have been angered by the remarks. The pressure increased significantly when Nusrat Ghani, a serving minister and the first female Muslim minister to speak from the House of Commons dispatch box, revealed that she had confronted Anderson over his comments. “I have spoken to Lee Anderson,” she wrote on X . “I’ve called out Islamic extremism (and been attacked by hard left, far right and Islamists). I don’t for one moment believe that Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists. To say so, is both foolish and dangerous. Frankly this is all so tiring.” Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Read more Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Read more Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Read more Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Lee Anderson is ‘pouring fuel on fire of anti-Muslim hatred’, says Sadiq Khan Before the suspension was announced, Khan accused Anderson of Islamophobia and racism, while also accusing the prime minister of a “deafening silence” after the comments. “I am unclear why Rishi Sunak, why members of his cabinet aren’t calling this out and aren’t condemning this,” he said. “It’s like they are complicit in this sort of racism. The message it sends is Muslims are fair game when it comes to racism and anti-Muslim hatred.” In a statement, Anderson said: “Following a call with the chief whip, I understand the difficult position that I have put both he and the prime minister in with regard to my comments. I fully accept that they had no option but to suspend the whip in these circumstances.” Margot James, a former Tory minister on the liberal wing of the party, said Anderson should not have been in the party in the first place. “At last, the whip removed from Anderson,” she said. “He should never have been a Conservative MP – let alone a vice-chair of the party.” Serving senior ministers were in despair last night over the behaviour of several senior party figures over the last week, with one cabinet minister describing it as an “awful” few days that have yet again plunged the Tories into infighting. Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair, said it was “deeply concerning” that Anderson could have retained the Tory whip and continued to sit as a Tory MP had he apologised for comments she described as “unambiguously Islamophobic, divisive and damaging”. She also called for action against Truss and Braverman. “It’s clear the prime minister still needs to do more to tackle extremists in his party, with former prime minister Liz Truss and former home secretary Suella Braverman still unashamedly giving voice to hateful commentary and conspiracy theories.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Islamophobia The Observer Sadiq Khan London Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour news Share Reuse this content Islamophobia The Observer Sadiq Khan London Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Conservatives Labour news |
Lee Anderson: from Labour councillor to Labour wind-up merchant
Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Lee Anderson: from Labour councillor to Labour wind-up merchant This article is more than 1 year old For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to the party’s pinstripes and privilege brigade, but then he went too far. Or did he? Lee Anderson, the former miner turned MP for Ashfield, has caused more controversy in his four-and-a-bit years in parliament than most of the 2019 intake combined. Before he was even elected, Labour was calling for him to be sacked, after he suggested nuisance social housing tenants should be evicted into tents and made to pick vegetables. But winding up Labour is one of Anderson’s greatest talents. He learned exactly which buttons to press, having served as office manager to Ashfield’s last Labour MP, Gloria De Piero, and sat as a Labour councillor on Ashfield district council. His ability to make Labour look prissy, and to say the unsayable in his broad Nottinghamshire yowl, was exactly why he was so prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. “Fuck off back to France,” he told asylum seekers complaining about their accommodation on the Bibby Stockholm barge. In Anderson’s world, foreign prisoners are living it up in “comfy cells”, only avoiding deportation because of “lefty lawyers”. He once responded to a Labour MP expressing concerns about the prejudice faced by Gypsies and Travellers by saying that the Travellers in his constituency were less likely to “flog” you lucky heather than “be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools”. For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to Rishi Sunak, with his £180 “smart mug” , and extravagantly rich wife . They believed he could woo the kind of voters who were turned off by Sunak’s expensive shoes and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s accent. They liked him showing his tattooed arms on GB News – proof, they hoped, that the party of pinstripes and privilege was now also the home of the inked-up working man. That’s how he rose to become party vice-chair last February, just days after giving an interview in which he went decidedly off-piste and expressed his support for the death penalty. The Conservatives had no plans to bring back executions, but would it be so bad for them if Anderson reached the not insubstantial minority of the electorate who remain in favour of the ultimate punishment? Similarly, when Anderson announced in 2021 that he would be boycotting the England football team in protest at their taking the knee before matches, his party left him to his own devices, reasoning that large swathes of the population probably shared his view. His views on women leave much to be desired. Cheryl Butler, the Labour leader of Ashfield council during Anderson’s tenure, told the Observer he was turned down in 2018 when he reapplied to be a Labour councillor, partly for his views on equality and diversity. “He was misogynistic,” Butler said. “In his interview, he said that a woman’s place was at home in the kitchen with the children.” Such opinions might have prompted his exit from Labour, but they were arguably viewed as a plus point for many in the Conservatives. But on Saturday, Anderson finally went too far, after he told GB News that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had “given our capital city away to his mates”. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London ,” he said. He refused to resign, and so had the whip withdrawn. But will he now be expelled from the party, making him unable to stand for the Conservatives in the next general election, whenever that may be? Don’t be so sure. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, has left the door open for his return. Anderson’s words were “not acceptable”, said Dowden. But, he added: “Of course, if he apologises, we’d look at the nature of that and make a determination at that point. But that’s a matter for the chief whip.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Lee Anderson features Share Reuse this content Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Lee Anderson: from Labour councillor to Labour wind-up merchant This article is more than 1 year old For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to the party’s pinstripes and privilege brigade, but then he went too far. Or did he? Lee Anderson, the former miner turned MP for Ashfield, has caused more controversy in his four-and-a-bit years in parliament than most of the 2019 intake combined. Before he was even elected, Labour was calling for him to be sacked, after he suggested nuisance social housing tenants should be evicted into tents and made to pick vegetables. But winding up Labour is one of Anderson’s greatest talents. He learned exactly which buttons to press, having served as office manager to Ashfield’s last Labour MP, Gloria De Piero, and sat as a Labour councillor on Ashfield district council. His ability to make Labour look prissy, and to say the unsayable in his broad Nottinghamshire yowl, was exactly why he was so prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. “Fuck off back to France,” he told asylum seekers complaining about their accommodation on the Bibby Stockholm barge. In Anderson’s world, foreign prisoners are living it up in “comfy cells”, only avoiding deportation because of “lefty lawyers”. He once responded to a Labour MP expressing concerns about the prejudice faced by Gypsies and Travellers by saying that the Travellers in his constituency were less likely to “flog” you lucky heather than “be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools”. For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to Rishi Sunak, with his £180 “smart mug” , and extravagantly rich wife . They believed he could woo the kind of voters who were turned off by Sunak’s expensive shoes and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s accent. They liked him showing his tattooed arms on GB News – proof, they hoped, that the party of pinstripes and privilege was now also the home of the inked-up working man. That’s how he rose to become party vice-chair last February, just days after giving an interview in which he went decidedly off-piste and expressed his support for the death penalty. The Conservatives had no plans to bring back executions, but would it be so bad for them if Anderson reached the not insubstantial minority of the electorate who remain in favour of the ultimate punishment? Similarly, when Anderson announced in 2021 that he would be boycotting the England football team in protest at their taking the knee before matches, his party left him to his own devices, reasoning that large swathes of the population probably shared his view. His views on women leave much to be desired. Cheryl Butler, the Labour leader of Ashfield council during Anderson’s tenure, told the Observer he was turned down in 2018 when he reapplied to be a Labour councillor, partly for his views on equality and diversity. “He was misogynistic,” Butler said. “In his interview, he said that a woman’s place was at home in the kitchen with the children.” Such opinions might have prompted his exit from Labour, but they were arguably viewed as a plus point for many in the Conservatives. But on Saturday, Anderson finally went too far, after he told GB News that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had “given our capital city away to his mates”. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London ,” he said. He refused to resign, and so had the whip withdrawn. But will he now be expelled from the party, making him unable to stand for the Conservatives in the next general election, whenever that may be? Don’t be so sure. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, has left the door open for his return. Anderson’s words were “not acceptable”, said Dowden. But, he added: “Of course, if he apologises, we’d look at the nature of that and make a determination at that point. But that’s a matter for the chief whip.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Lee Anderson features Share Reuse this content Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images Lee Anderson, prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Lee Anderson: from Labour councillor to Labour wind-up merchant This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Lee Anderson: from Labour councillor to Labour wind-up merchant This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Lee Anderson: from Labour councillor to Labour wind-up merchant This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to the party’s pinstripes and privilege brigade, but then he went too far. Or did he? For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to the party’s pinstripes and privilege brigade, but then he went too far. Or did he? For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to the party’s pinstripes and privilege brigade, but then he went too far. Or did he? Lee Anderson, the former miner turned MP for Ashfield, has caused more controversy in his four-and-a-bit years in parliament than most of the 2019 intake combined. Before he was even elected, Labour was calling for him to be sacked, after he suggested nuisance social housing tenants should be evicted into tents and made to pick vegetables. But winding up Labour is one of Anderson’s greatest talents. He learned exactly which buttons to press, having served as office manager to Ashfield’s last Labour MP, Gloria De Piero, and sat as a Labour councillor on Ashfield district council. His ability to make Labour look prissy, and to say the unsayable in his broad Nottinghamshire yowl, was exactly why he was so prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. “Fuck off back to France,” he told asylum seekers complaining about their accommodation on the Bibby Stockholm barge. In Anderson’s world, foreign prisoners are living it up in “comfy cells”, only avoiding deportation because of “lefty lawyers”. He once responded to a Labour MP expressing concerns about the prejudice faced by Gypsies and Travellers by saying that the Travellers in his constituency were less likely to “flog” you lucky heather than “be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools”. For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to Rishi Sunak, with his £180 “smart mug” , and extravagantly rich wife . They believed he could woo the kind of voters who were turned off by Sunak’s expensive shoes and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s accent. They liked him showing his tattooed arms on GB News – proof, they hoped, that the party of pinstripes and privilege was now also the home of the inked-up working man. That’s how he rose to become party vice-chair last February, just days after giving an interview in which he went decidedly off-piste and expressed his support for the death penalty. The Conservatives had no plans to bring back executions, but would it be so bad for them if Anderson reached the not insubstantial minority of the electorate who remain in favour of the ultimate punishment? Similarly, when Anderson announced in 2021 that he would be boycotting the England football team in protest at their taking the knee before matches, his party left him to his own devices, reasoning that large swathes of the population probably shared his view. His views on women leave much to be desired. Cheryl Butler, the Labour leader of Ashfield council during Anderson’s tenure, told the Observer he was turned down in 2018 when he reapplied to be a Labour councillor, partly for his views on equality and diversity. “He was misogynistic,” Butler said. “In his interview, he said that a woman’s place was at home in the kitchen with the children.” Such opinions might have prompted his exit from Labour, but they were arguably viewed as a plus point for many in the Conservatives. But on Saturday, Anderson finally went too far, after he told GB News that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had “given our capital city away to his mates”. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London ,” he said. He refused to resign, and so had the whip withdrawn. But will he now be expelled from the party, making him unable to stand for the Conservatives in the next general election, whenever that may be? Don’t be so sure. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, has left the door open for his return. Anderson’s words were “not acceptable”, said Dowden. But, he added: “Of course, if he apologises, we’d look at the nature of that and make a determination at that point. But that’s a matter for the chief whip.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Lee Anderson features Share Reuse this content Lee Anderson, the former miner turned MP for Ashfield, has caused more controversy in his four-and-a-bit years in parliament than most of the 2019 intake combined. Before he was even elected, Labour was calling for him to be sacked, after he suggested nuisance social housing tenants should be evicted into tents and made to pick vegetables. But winding up Labour is one of Anderson’s greatest talents. He learned exactly which buttons to press, having served as office manager to Ashfield’s last Labour MP, Gloria De Piero, and sat as a Labour councillor on Ashfield district council. His ability to make Labour look prissy, and to say the unsayable in his broad Nottinghamshire yowl, was exactly why he was so prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. “Fuck off back to France,” he told asylum seekers complaining about their accommodation on the Bibby Stockholm barge. In Anderson’s world, foreign prisoners are living it up in “comfy cells”, only avoiding deportation because of “lefty lawyers”. He once responded to a Labour MP expressing concerns about the prejudice faced by Gypsies and Travellers by saying that the Travellers in his constituency were less likely to “flog” you lucky heather than “be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools”. For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to Rishi Sunak, with his £180 “smart mug” , and extravagantly rich wife . They believed he could woo the kind of voters who were turned off by Sunak’s expensive shoes and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s accent. They liked him showing his tattooed arms on GB News – proof, they hoped, that the party of pinstripes and privilege was now also the home of the inked-up working man. That’s how he rose to become party vice-chair last February, just days after giving an interview in which he went decidedly off-piste and expressed his support for the death penalty. The Conservatives had no plans to bring back executions, but would it be so bad for them if Anderson reached the not insubstantial minority of the electorate who remain in favour of the ultimate punishment? Similarly, when Anderson announced in 2021 that he would be boycotting the England football team in protest at their taking the knee before matches, his party left him to his own devices, reasoning that large swathes of the population probably shared his view. His views on women leave much to be desired. Cheryl Butler, the Labour leader of Ashfield council during Anderson’s tenure, told the Observer he was turned down in 2018 when he reapplied to be a Labour councillor, partly for his views on equality and diversity. “He was misogynistic,” Butler said. “In his interview, he said that a woman’s place was at home in the kitchen with the children.” Such opinions might have prompted his exit from Labour, but they were arguably viewed as a plus point for many in the Conservatives. But on Saturday, Anderson finally went too far, after he told GB News that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had “given our capital city away to his mates”. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London ,” he said. He refused to resign, and so had the whip withdrawn. But will he now be expelled from the party, making him unable to stand for the Conservatives in the next general election, whenever that may be? Don’t be so sure. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, has left the door open for his return. Anderson’s words were “not acceptable”, said Dowden. But, he added: “Of course, if he apologises, we’d look at the nature of that and make a determination at that point. But that’s a matter for the chief whip.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Lee Anderson features Share Reuse this content Lee Anderson, the former miner turned MP for Ashfield, has caused more controversy in his four-and-a-bit years in parliament than most of the 2019 intake combined. Before he was even elected, Labour was calling for him to be sacked, after he suggested nuisance social housing tenants should be evicted into tents and made to pick vegetables. But winding up Labour is one of Anderson’s greatest talents. He learned exactly which buttons to press, having served as office manager to Ashfield’s last Labour MP, Gloria De Piero, and sat as a Labour councillor on Ashfield district council. His ability to make Labour look prissy, and to say the unsayable in his broad Nottinghamshire yowl, was exactly why he was so prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. “Fuck off back to France,” he told asylum seekers complaining about their accommodation on the Bibby Stockholm barge. In Anderson’s world, foreign prisoners are living it up in “comfy cells”, only avoiding deportation because of “lefty lawyers”. He once responded to a Labour MP expressing concerns about the prejudice faced by Gypsies and Travellers by saying that the Travellers in his constituency were less likely to “flog” you lucky heather than “be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools”. For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to Rishi Sunak, with his £180 “smart mug” , and extravagantly rich wife . They believed he could woo the kind of voters who were turned off by Sunak’s expensive shoes and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s accent. They liked him showing his tattooed arms on GB News – proof, they hoped, that the party of pinstripes and privilege was now also the home of the inked-up working man. That’s how he rose to become party vice-chair last February, just days after giving an interview in which he went decidedly off-piste and expressed his support for the death penalty. The Conservatives had no plans to bring back executions, but would it be so bad for them if Anderson reached the not insubstantial minority of the electorate who remain in favour of the ultimate punishment? Similarly, when Anderson announced in 2021 that he would be boycotting the England football team in protest at their taking the knee before matches, his party left him to his own devices, reasoning that large swathes of the population probably shared his view. His views on women leave much to be desired. Cheryl Butler, the Labour leader of Ashfield council during Anderson’s tenure, told the Observer he was turned down in 2018 when he reapplied to be a Labour councillor, partly for his views on equality and diversity. “He was misogynistic,” Butler said. “In his interview, he said that a woman’s place was at home in the kitchen with the children.” Such opinions might have prompted his exit from Labour, but they were arguably viewed as a plus point for many in the Conservatives. But on Saturday, Anderson finally went too far, after he told GB News that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had “given our capital city away to his mates”. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London ,” he said. He refused to resign, and so had the whip withdrawn. But will he now be expelled from the party, making him unable to stand for the Conservatives in the next general election, whenever that may be? Don’t be so sure. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, has left the door open for his return. Anderson’s words were “not acceptable”, said Dowden. But, he added: “Of course, if he apologises, we’d look at the nature of that and make a determination at that point. But that’s a matter for the chief whip.” Lee Anderson, the former miner turned MP for Ashfield, has caused more controversy in his four-and-a-bit years in parliament than most of the 2019 intake combined. Before he was even elected, Labour was calling for him to be sacked, after he suggested nuisance social housing tenants should be evicted into tents and made to pick vegetables. But winding up Labour is one of Anderson’s greatest talents. He learned exactly which buttons to press, having served as office manager to Ashfield’s last Labour MP, Gloria De Piero, and sat as a Labour councillor on Ashfield district council. His ability to make Labour look prissy, and to say the unsayable in his broad Nottinghamshire yowl, was exactly why he was so prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. “Fuck off back to France,” he told asylum seekers complaining about their accommodation on the Bibby Stockholm barge. In Anderson’s world, foreign prisoners are living it up in “comfy cells”, only avoiding deportation because of “lefty lawyers”. He once responded to a Labour MP expressing concerns about the prejudice faced by Gypsies and Travellers by saying that the Travellers in his constituency were less likely to “flog” you lucky heather than “be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools”. For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to Rishi Sunak, with his £180 “smart mug” , and extravagantly rich wife . They believed he could woo the kind of voters who were turned off by Sunak’s expensive shoes and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s accent. They liked him showing his tattooed arms on GB News – proof, they hoped, that the party of pinstripes and privilege was now also the home of the inked-up working man. That’s how he rose to become party vice-chair last February, just days after giving an interview in which he went decidedly off-piste and expressed his support for the death penalty. The Conservatives had no plans to bring back executions, but would it be so bad for them if Anderson reached the not insubstantial minority of the electorate who remain in favour of the ultimate punishment? Similarly, when Anderson announced in 2021 that he would be boycotting the England football team in protest at their taking the knee before matches, his party left him to his own devices, reasoning that large swathes of the population probably shared his view. His views on women leave much to be desired. Cheryl Butler, the Labour leader of Ashfield council during Anderson’s tenure, told the Observer he was turned down in 2018 when he reapplied to be a Labour councillor, partly for his views on equality and diversity. “He was misogynistic,” Butler said. “In his interview, he said that a woman’s place was at home in the kitchen with the children.” Such opinions might have prompted his exit from Labour, but they were arguably viewed as a plus point for many in the Conservatives. But on Saturday, Anderson finally went too far, after he told GB News that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had “given our capital city away to his mates”. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London ,” he said. He refused to resign, and so had the whip withdrawn. But will he now be expelled from the party, making him unable to stand for the Conservatives in the next general election, whenever that may be? Don’t be so sure. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, has left the door open for his return. Anderson’s words were “not acceptable”, said Dowden. But, he added: “Of course, if he apologises, we’d look at the nature of that and make a determination at that point. But that’s a matter for the chief whip.” Lee Anderson, the former miner turned MP for Ashfield, has caused more controversy in his four-and-a-bit years in parliament than most of the 2019 intake combined. Before he was even elected, Labour was calling for him to be sacked, after he suggested nuisance social housing tenants should be evicted into tents and made to pick vegetables. But winding up Labour is one of Anderson’s greatest talents. He learned exactly which buttons to press, having served as office manager to Ashfield’s last Labour MP, Gloria De Piero, and sat as a Labour councillor on Ashfield district council. His ability to make Labour look prissy, and to say the unsayable in his broad Nottinghamshire yowl, was exactly why he was so prized by the Conservatives as a one-man unmoderated comments section. “Fuck off back to France,” he told asylum seekers complaining about their accommodation on the Bibby Stockholm barge. In Anderson’s world, foreign prisoners are living it up in “comfy cells”, only avoiding deportation because of “lefty lawyers”. He once responded to a Labour MP expressing concerns about the prejudice faced by Gypsies and Travellers by saying that the Travellers in his constituency were less likely to “flog” you lucky heather than “be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools”. For the Tories he was a useful counterpart to Rishi Sunak, with his £180 “smart mug” , and extravagantly rich wife . They believed he could woo the kind of voters who were turned off by Sunak’s expensive shoes and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s accent. They liked him showing his tattooed arms on GB News – proof, they hoped, that the party of pinstripes and privilege was now also the home of the inked-up working man. That’s how he rose to become party vice-chair last February, just days after giving an interview in which he went decidedly off-piste and expressed his support for the death penalty. The Conservatives had no plans to bring back executions, but would it be so bad for them if Anderson reached the not insubstantial minority of the electorate who remain in favour of the ultimate punishment? Similarly, when Anderson announced in 2021 that he would be boycotting the England football team in protest at their taking the knee before matches, his party left him to his own devices, reasoning that large swathes of the population probably shared his view. His views on women leave much to be desired. Cheryl Butler, the Labour leader of Ashfield council during Anderson’s tenure, told the Observer he was turned down in 2018 when he reapplied to be a Labour councillor, partly for his views on equality and diversity. “He was misogynistic,” Butler said. “In his interview, he said that a woman’s place was at home in the kitchen with the children.” Such opinions might have prompted his exit from Labour, but they were arguably viewed as a plus point for many in the Conservatives. But on Saturday, Anderson finally went too far, after he told GB News that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had “given our capital city away to his mates”. “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan, and they’ve got control of London ,” he said. He refused to resign, and so had the whip withdrawn. But will he now be expelled from the party, making him unable to stand for the Conservatives in the next general election, whenever that may be? Don’t be so sure. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, has left the door open for his return. Anderson’s words were “not acceptable”, said Dowden. But, he added: “Of course, if he apologises, we’d look at the nature of that and make a determination at that point. But that’s a matter for the chief whip.” Explore more on these topics Conservatives Lee Anderson features Share Reuse this content Conservatives Lee Anderson features |
Jamaican man to be deported from UK after previous attempt was halted by fellow passengers
Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA View image in fullscreen Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA This article is more than 1 year old Jamaican man to be deported from UK after previous attempt was halted by fellow passengers This article is more than 1 year old Lawrence Morgan has convictions for firearms and drugs offences and has lived in the UK since he was six A Jamaican man whose deportation was halted last November after passengers on a BA flight from Gatwick to Kingston protested when they witnessed him being restrained on board, is due to be deported on Sunday. Lawrence Morgan, 27, has convictions for serious firearms and drugs offences. During the Home Office’s attempt to deport him last November, passengers on the flight protested after seeing him being restrained by escorts at the back of the plane. Morgan spoke to the Guardian while detained in Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick airport on Saturday and again while en route to the airport on Sunday morning. He claimed escorts taking him to the airport had used excessive force against him and said he was being escorted by armed police. He is due to fly on a Norse Atlantic Airlines commercial passenger flight due to take off from Gatwick to fly to Montego Bay at noon on Sunday. Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. While Morgan’s criminal convictions are serious, he arrived in the UK at the age of six and has lived most of his life here. He said: “All my family are here. I don’t know anybody in Jamaica and believe my life will be at risk there. It is my daughter’s eighth birthday today. I promised her a present but instead I can’t even see her on her birthday.” On a previous deportation flight to Jamaica an agreement was made between the Jamaican authorities and the UK government that people who have lived in the UK since childhood would not be deported. Hannah Gaffey, the woman who raised concerns about Morgan’s deportation when she witnessed him being restrained on the November 2023 flight said that she had concerns about the plans to deport him. “Somebody who has lived in the UK since they were six years old should not be deported to a country they have no connection to. Lawrence has served his time in prison and deserves the right to start his life again, like any other person with convictions. I am extremely concerned about his safety on return to Jamaica as other deportees returned there have been killed.” The home secretary, James Cleverly, criticised Gaffey and others on the November flight as “do gooders”. The Home Office, Norse Atlantic and the Jamaica High Commission have been approached for comment. The Home Office previously used charter flights to deport people to Jamaica but these were controversial due to issues of Windrush. According to Home Office freedom of information data, planned deportation charters to Jamaica in 2022 and 2023 were cancelled. Morgan said that during the previous attempt to deport him he was dragged to the plane and sustained a number of injuries while he was restrained on the flight. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Windrush scandal Commonwealth immigration news Share Reuse this content Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA View image in fullscreen Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA This article is more than 1 year old Jamaican man to be deported from UK after previous attempt was halted by fellow passengers This article is more than 1 year old Lawrence Morgan has convictions for firearms and drugs offences and has lived in the UK since he was six A Jamaican man whose deportation was halted last November after passengers on a BA flight from Gatwick to Kingston protested when they witnessed him being restrained on board, is due to be deported on Sunday. Lawrence Morgan, 27, has convictions for serious firearms and drugs offences. During the Home Office’s attempt to deport him last November, passengers on the flight protested after seeing him being restrained by escorts at the back of the plane. Morgan spoke to the Guardian while detained in Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick airport on Saturday and again while en route to the airport on Sunday morning. He claimed escorts taking him to the airport had used excessive force against him and said he was being escorted by armed police. He is due to fly on a Norse Atlantic Airlines commercial passenger flight due to take off from Gatwick to fly to Montego Bay at noon on Sunday. Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. While Morgan’s criminal convictions are serious, he arrived in the UK at the age of six and has lived most of his life here. He said: “All my family are here. I don’t know anybody in Jamaica and believe my life will be at risk there. It is my daughter’s eighth birthday today. I promised her a present but instead I can’t even see her on her birthday.” On a previous deportation flight to Jamaica an agreement was made between the Jamaican authorities and the UK government that people who have lived in the UK since childhood would not be deported. Hannah Gaffey, the woman who raised concerns about Morgan’s deportation when she witnessed him being restrained on the November 2023 flight said that she had concerns about the plans to deport him. “Somebody who has lived in the UK since they were six years old should not be deported to a country they have no connection to. Lawrence has served his time in prison and deserves the right to start his life again, like any other person with convictions. I am extremely concerned about his safety on return to Jamaica as other deportees returned there have been killed.” The home secretary, James Cleverly, criticised Gaffey and others on the November flight as “do gooders”. The Home Office, Norse Atlantic and the Jamaica High Commission have been approached for comment. The Home Office previously used charter flights to deport people to Jamaica but these were controversial due to issues of Windrush. According to Home Office freedom of information data, planned deportation charters to Jamaica in 2022 and 2023 were cancelled. Morgan said that during the previous attempt to deport him he was dragged to the plane and sustained a number of injuries while he was restrained on the flight. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Windrush scandal Commonwealth immigration news Share Reuse this content Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA View image in fullscreen Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA View image in fullscreen Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA View image in fullscreen Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA View image in fullscreen Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. Photograph: Adam Davy/PA This article is more than 1 year old Jamaican man to be deported from UK after previous attempt was halted by fellow passengers This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Jamaican man to be deported from UK after previous attempt was halted by fellow passengers This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Jamaican man to be deported from UK after previous attempt was halted by fellow passengers This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Lawrence Morgan has convictions for firearms and drugs offences and has lived in the UK since he was six Lawrence Morgan has convictions for firearms and drugs offences and has lived in the UK since he was six Lawrence Morgan has convictions for firearms and drugs offences and has lived in the UK since he was six A Jamaican man whose deportation was halted last November after passengers on a BA flight from Gatwick to Kingston protested when they witnessed him being restrained on board, is due to be deported on Sunday. Lawrence Morgan, 27, has convictions for serious firearms and drugs offences. During the Home Office’s attempt to deport him last November, passengers on the flight protested after seeing him being restrained by escorts at the back of the plane. Morgan spoke to the Guardian while detained in Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick airport on Saturday and again while en route to the airport on Sunday morning. He claimed escorts taking him to the airport had used excessive force against him and said he was being escorted by armed police. He is due to fly on a Norse Atlantic Airlines commercial passenger flight due to take off from Gatwick to fly to Montego Bay at noon on Sunday. Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. While Morgan’s criminal convictions are serious, he arrived in the UK at the age of six and has lived most of his life here. He said: “All my family are here. I don’t know anybody in Jamaica and believe my life will be at risk there. It is my daughter’s eighth birthday today. I promised her a present but instead I can’t even see her on her birthday.” On a previous deportation flight to Jamaica an agreement was made between the Jamaican authorities and the UK government that people who have lived in the UK since childhood would not be deported. Hannah Gaffey, the woman who raised concerns about Morgan’s deportation when she witnessed him being restrained on the November 2023 flight said that she had concerns about the plans to deport him. “Somebody who has lived in the UK since they were six years old should not be deported to a country they have no connection to. Lawrence has served his time in prison and deserves the right to start his life again, like any other person with convictions. I am extremely concerned about his safety on return to Jamaica as other deportees returned there have been killed.” The home secretary, James Cleverly, criticised Gaffey and others on the November flight as “do gooders”. The Home Office, Norse Atlantic and the Jamaica High Commission have been approached for comment. The Home Office previously used charter flights to deport people to Jamaica but these were controversial due to issues of Windrush. According to Home Office freedom of information data, planned deportation charters to Jamaica in 2022 and 2023 were cancelled. Morgan said that during the previous attempt to deport him he was dragged to the plane and sustained a number of injuries while he was restrained on the flight. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Windrush scandal Commonwealth immigration news Share Reuse this content A Jamaican man whose deportation was halted last November after passengers on a BA flight from Gatwick to Kingston protested when they witnessed him being restrained on board, is due to be deported on Sunday. Lawrence Morgan, 27, has convictions for serious firearms and drugs offences. During the Home Office’s attempt to deport him last November, passengers on the flight protested after seeing him being restrained by escorts at the back of the plane. Morgan spoke to the Guardian while detained in Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick airport on Saturday and again while en route to the airport on Sunday morning. He claimed escorts taking him to the airport had used excessive force against him and said he was being escorted by armed police. He is due to fly on a Norse Atlantic Airlines commercial passenger flight due to take off from Gatwick to fly to Montego Bay at noon on Sunday. Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. While Morgan’s criminal convictions are serious, he arrived in the UK at the age of six and has lived most of his life here. He said: “All my family are here. I don’t know anybody in Jamaica and believe my life will be at risk there. It is my daughter’s eighth birthday today. I promised her a present but instead I can’t even see her on her birthday.” On a previous deportation flight to Jamaica an agreement was made between the Jamaican authorities and the UK government that people who have lived in the UK since childhood would not be deported. Hannah Gaffey, the woman who raised concerns about Morgan’s deportation when she witnessed him being restrained on the November 2023 flight said that she had concerns about the plans to deport him. “Somebody who has lived in the UK since they were six years old should not be deported to a country they have no connection to. Lawrence has served his time in prison and deserves the right to start his life again, like any other person with convictions. I am extremely concerned about his safety on return to Jamaica as other deportees returned there have been killed.” The home secretary, James Cleverly, criticised Gaffey and others on the November flight as “do gooders”. The Home Office, Norse Atlantic and the Jamaica High Commission have been approached for comment. The Home Office previously used charter flights to deport people to Jamaica but these were controversial due to issues of Windrush. According to Home Office freedom of information data, planned deportation charters to Jamaica in 2022 and 2023 were cancelled. Morgan said that during the previous attempt to deport him he was dragged to the plane and sustained a number of injuries while he was restrained on the flight. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Windrush scandal Commonwealth immigration news Share Reuse this content A Jamaican man whose deportation was halted last November after passengers on a BA flight from Gatwick to Kingston protested when they witnessed him being restrained on board, is due to be deported on Sunday. Lawrence Morgan, 27, has convictions for serious firearms and drugs offences. During the Home Office’s attempt to deport him last November, passengers on the flight protested after seeing him being restrained by escorts at the back of the plane. Morgan spoke to the Guardian while detained in Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick airport on Saturday and again while en route to the airport on Sunday morning. He claimed escorts taking him to the airport had used excessive force against him and said he was being escorted by armed police. He is due to fly on a Norse Atlantic Airlines commercial passenger flight due to take off from Gatwick to fly to Montego Bay at noon on Sunday. Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. While Morgan’s criminal convictions are serious, he arrived in the UK at the age of six and has lived most of his life here. He said: “All my family are here. I don’t know anybody in Jamaica and believe my life will be at risk there. It is my daughter’s eighth birthday today. I promised her a present but instead I can’t even see her on her birthday.” On a previous deportation flight to Jamaica an agreement was made between the Jamaican authorities and the UK government that people who have lived in the UK since childhood would not be deported. Hannah Gaffey, the woman who raised concerns about Morgan’s deportation when she witnessed him being restrained on the November 2023 flight said that she had concerns about the plans to deport him. “Somebody who has lived in the UK since they were six years old should not be deported to a country they have no connection to. Lawrence has served his time in prison and deserves the right to start his life again, like any other person with convictions. I am extremely concerned about his safety on return to Jamaica as other deportees returned there have been killed.” The home secretary, James Cleverly, criticised Gaffey and others on the November flight as “do gooders”. The Home Office, Norse Atlantic and the Jamaica High Commission have been approached for comment. The Home Office previously used charter flights to deport people to Jamaica but these were controversial due to issues of Windrush. According to Home Office freedom of information data, planned deportation charters to Jamaica in 2022 and 2023 were cancelled. Morgan said that during the previous attempt to deport him he was dragged to the plane and sustained a number of injuries while he was restrained on the flight. A Jamaican man whose deportation was halted last November after passengers on a BA flight from Gatwick to Kingston protested when they witnessed him being restrained on board, is due to be deported on Sunday. Lawrence Morgan, 27, has convictions for serious firearms and drugs offences. During the Home Office’s attempt to deport him last November, passengers on the flight protested after seeing him being restrained by escorts at the back of the plane. Morgan spoke to the Guardian while detained in Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick airport on Saturday and again while en route to the airport on Sunday morning. He claimed escorts taking him to the airport had used excessive force against him and said he was being escorted by armed police. He is due to fly on a Norse Atlantic Airlines commercial passenger flight due to take off from Gatwick to fly to Montego Bay at noon on Sunday. Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. While Morgan’s criminal convictions are serious, he arrived in the UK at the age of six and has lived most of his life here. He said: “All my family are here. I don’t know anybody in Jamaica and believe my life will be at risk there. It is my daughter’s eighth birthday today. I promised her a present but instead I can’t even see her on her birthday.” On a previous deportation flight to Jamaica an agreement was made between the Jamaican authorities and the UK government that people who have lived in the UK since childhood would not be deported. Hannah Gaffey, the woman who raised concerns about Morgan’s deportation when she witnessed him being restrained on the November 2023 flight said that she had concerns about the plans to deport him. “Somebody who has lived in the UK since they were six years old should not be deported to a country they have no connection to. Lawrence has served his time in prison and deserves the right to start his life again, like any other person with convictions. I am extremely concerned about his safety on return to Jamaica as other deportees returned there have been killed.” The home secretary, James Cleverly, criticised Gaffey and others on the November flight as “do gooders”. The Home Office, Norse Atlantic and the Jamaica High Commission have been approached for comment. The Home Office previously used charter flights to deport people to Jamaica but these were controversial due to issues of Windrush. According to Home Office freedom of information data, planned deportation charters to Jamaica in 2022 and 2023 were cancelled. Morgan said that during the previous attempt to deport him he was dragged to the plane and sustained a number of injuries while he was restrained on the flight. A Jamaican man whose deportation was halted last November after passengers on a BA flight from Gatwick to Kingston protested when they witnessed him being restrained on board, is due to be deported on Sunday. Lawrence Morgan, 27, has convictions for serious firearms and drugs offences. During the Home Office’s attempt to deport him last November, passengers on the flight protested after seeing him being restrained by escorts at the back of the plane. Morgan spoke to the Guardian while detained in Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick airport on Saturday and again while en route to the airport on Sunday morning. He claimed escorts taking him to the airport had used excessive force against him and said he was being escorted by armed police. He is due to fly on a Norse Atlantic Airlines commercial passenger flight due to take off from Gatwick to fly to Montego Bay at noon on Sunday. Deportations to Jamaica are particularly controversial because some of those deported have lived in the UK since childhood and some are Windrush descendants. While Morgan’s criminal convictions are serious, he arrived in the UK at the age of six and has lived most of his life here. He said: “All my family are here. I don’t know anybody in Jamaica and believe my life will be at risk there. It is my daughter’s eighth birthday today. I promised her a present but instead I can’t even see her on her birthday.” On a previous deportation flight to Jamaica an agreement was made between the Jamaican authorities and the UK government that people who have lived in the UK since childhood would not be deported. Hannah Gaffey, the woman who raised concerns about Morgan’s deportation when she witnessed him being restrained on the November 2023 flight said that she had concerns about the plans to deport him. “Somebody who has lived in the UK since they were six years old should not be deported to a country they have no connection to. Lawrence has served his time in prison and deserves the right to start his life again, like any other person with convictions. I am extremely concerned about his safety on return to Jamaica as other deportees returned there have been killed.” The home secretary, James Cleverly, criticised Gaffey and others on the November flight as “do gooders”. The Home Office, Norse Atlantic and the Jamaica High Commission have been approached for comment. The Home Office previously used charter flights to deport people to Jamaica but these were controversial due to issues of Windrush. According to Home Office freedom of information data, planned deportation charters to Jamaica in 2022 and 2023 were cancelled. Morgan said that during the previous attempt to deport him he was dragged to the plane and sustained a number of injuries while he was restrained on the flight. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Windrush scandal Commonwealth immigration news Share Reuse this content Immigration and asylum Windrush scandal Commonwealth immigration news |
Lisa Nandy says she carries a police alarm, as fears rise about MPs’ safety
Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Lisa Nandy says she carries a police alarm, as fears rise about MPs’ safety This article is more than 1 year old Labour shadow minister has extra security arrangements in place and says that is a ‘very typical experience’ for MPs A shadow cabinet minister has spoken about how she carries a police alarm with her everywhere amid heightened concerns over the security of politicians. Labour MP Lisa Nandy , the shadow international development secretary, has spoken about the extra security precautions she has had to take, including only seeing her constituents by appointment. Speaking to Times Radio, Nandy said: “Instead of doing publicly advertised surgeries, we now do them by appointment. We have security present. I carry a police alarm everywhere that I go. I have security on my home. “And that is a really very typical experience for members of parliament … I went to a party meeting just last week and had people gathering around the entrance of that, shouting ‘genocide’ and accusing me and others of committing genocide. “We’ve had a couple of senior members of the shadow cabinet surrounded by people as they were going about canvassing, being filmed on their phones, and very aggressive comments about their own families. There was the Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, who had people outside of his home.” Several MPs across the Commons have spoken about the increase in abuse and threats since the outbreak of war in the Middle East in October. The Sunday Times reported that three female MPs have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . The women, who include both Labour and Tory MPs, had their security upgraded after a risk assessment. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, revealed on Sunday that he had received death threats and said that MPs got them “routinely”, telling Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “I think it’s sadly the case that many members have been threatened and, indeed, that has been the case in relation to me as well. “All of us, unfortunately, face threats of violence, death threats and so on, in varying degrees. I’ve never had one that has been of the most serious nature, but we routinely receive these kinds of threats,” Dowden added. Rishi Sunak said MPs had been “verbally threatened and physically, violently targeted” in recent weeks as protests were “hijacked by extremists to promote and glorify terrorism”. The prime minister added that it was “the latest in an emerging pattern which should not be tolerated”. Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, has come under pressure after he broke with protocol last week to allow votes on three separate propositions from the three main parties relating to a ceasefire in Gaza. Some Conservative and Scottish National party MPs have called for the speaker to resign over the decision, which ultimately benefited Labour by allowing it to dodge a difficult vote. By the end of the week 71 MPs had put their names to a motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle, and the SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, publicly said he thought Hoyle should go. An emotional Hoyle told MPs on Wednesday he had taken his decision because he was fearful of an attack on MPs. “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists,” he said. “I also don’t want another attack on this house.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion On Sky, Dowden refused to back Hoyle and said “the speaker has serious questions to answer about what happened and that’s what the leader of the house will be asking about on Monday”. The SNP is now pushing for a so-called “meaningful vote” on a ceasefire in Gaza and has written to Keir Starmer and Ed Davey inviting them to discussions about its wording. The SNP is proposing parliament mandates the UK government to use its position on the UN security council to vote for an immediate ceasefire, and follow the advice of independent UN experts to halt all transfers of military equipment and technology, including components, to Israel, and to suspend the issuing of new licences. Flynn said: “After the shameful scenes at Westminster last week, it’s vital the UK parliament urgently focuses on what really matters, doing everything we can to help secure an immediate ceasefire and lasting peace in Gaza and Israel.” The party claims its actions “forced” Starmer to do a U-turn on his opposition to calling for an immediate ceasefire and said MPs must “work together” to get Sunak to do the same. Explore more on these topics Lisa Nandy Israel-Gaza war Labour Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Lisa Nandy says she carries a police alarm, as fears rise about MPs’ safety This article is more than 1 year old Labour shadow minister has extra security arrangements in place and says that is a ‘very typical experience’ for MPs A shadow cabinet minister has spoken about how she carries a police alarm with her everywhere amid heightened concerns over the security of politicians. Labour MP Lisa Nandy , the shadow international development secretary, has spoken about the extra security precautions she has had to take, including only seeing her constituents by appointment. Speaking to Times Radio, Nandy said: “Instead of doing publicly advertised surgeries, we now do them by appointment. We have security present. I carry a police alarm everywhere that I go. I have security on my home. “And that is a really very typical experience for members of parliament … I went to a party meeting just last week and had people gathering around the entrance of that, shouting ‘genocide’ and accusing me and others of committing genocide. “We’ve had a couple of senior members of the shadow cabinet surrounded by people as they were going about canvassing, being filmed on their phones, and very aggressive comments about their own families. There was the Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, who had people outside of his home.” Several MPs across the Commons have spoken about the increase in abuse and threats since the outbreak of war in the Middle East in October. The Sunday Times reported that three female MPs have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . The women, who include both Labour and Tory MPs, had their security upgraded after a risk assessment. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, revealed on Sunday that he had received death threats and said that MPs got them “routinely”, telling Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “I think it’s sadly the case that many members have been threatened and, indeed, that has been the case in relation to me as well. “All of us, unfortunately, face threats of violence, death threats and so on, in varying degrees. I’ve never had one that has been of the most serious nature, but we routinely receive these kinds of threats,” Dowden added. Rishi Sunak said MPs had been “verbally threatened and physically, violently targeted” in recent weeks as protests were “hijacked by extremists to promote and glorify terrorism”. The prime minister added that it was “the latest in an emerging pattern which should not be tolerated”. Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, has come under pressure after he broke with protocol last week to allow votes on three separate propositions from the three main parties relating to a ceasefire in Gaza. Some Conservative and Scottish National party MPs have called for the speaker to resign over the decision, which ultimately benefited Labour by allowing it to dodge a difficult vote. By the end of the week 71 MPs had put their names to a motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle, and the SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, publicly said he thought Hoyle should go. An emotional Hoyle told MPs on Wednesday he had taken his decision because he was fearful of an attack on MPs. “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists,” he said. “I also don’t want another attack on this house.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion On Sky, Dowden refused to back Hoyle and said “the speaker has serious questions to answer about what happened and that’s what the leader of the house will be asking about on Monday”. The SNP is now pushing for a so-called “meaningful vote” on a ceasefire in Gaza and has written to Keir Starmer and Ed Davey inviting them to discussions about its wording. The SNP is proposing parliament mandates the UK government to use its position on the UN security council to vote for an immediate ceasefire, and follow the advice of independent UN experts to halt all transfers of military equipment and technology, including components, to Israel, and to suspend the issuing of new licences. Flynn said: “After the shameful scenes at Westminster last week, it’s vital the UK parliament urgently focuses on what really matters, doing everything we can to help secure an immediate ceasefire and lasting peace in Gaza and Israel.” The party claims its actions “forced” Starmer to do a U-turn on his opposition to calling for an immediate ceasefire and said MPs must “work together” to get Sunak to do the same. Explore more on these topics Lisa Nandy Israel-Gaza war Labour Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock Lisa Nandy on 21 Febuary 2024. She says constituents now have to make an appointment to see her. Photograph: Tayfun Salcı/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Lisa Nandy says she carries a police alarm, as fears rise about MPs’ safety This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Lisa Nandy says she carries a police alarm, as fears rise about MPs’ safety This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Lisa Nandy says she carries a police alarm, as fears rise about MPs’ safety This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Labour shadow minister has extra security arrangements in place and says that is a ‘very typical experience’ for MPs Labour shadow minister has extra security arrangements in place and says that is a ‘very typical experience’ for MPs Labour shadow minister has extra security arrangements in place and says that is a ‘very typical experience’ for MPs A shadow cabinet minister has spoken about how she carries a police alarm with her everywhere amid heightened concerns over the security of politicians. Labour MP Lisa Nandy , the shadow international development secretary, has spoken about the extra security precautions she has had to take, including only seeing her constituents by appointment. Speaking to Times Radio, Nandy said: “Instead of doing publicly advertised surgeries, we now do them by appointment. We have security present. I carry a police alarm everywhere that I go. I have security on my home. “And that is a really very typical experience for members of parliament … I went to a party meeting just last week and had people gathering around the entrance of that, shouting ‘genocide’ and accusing me and others of committing genocide. “We’ve had a couple of senior members of the shadow cabinet surrounded by people as they were going about canvassing, being filmed on their phones, and very aggressive comments about their own families. There was the Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, who had people outside of his home.” Several MPs across the Commons have spoken about the increase in abuse and threats since the outbreak of war in the Middle East in October. The Sunday Times reported that three female MPs have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . The women, who include both Labour and Tory MPs, had their security upgraded after a risk assessment. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, revealed on Sunday that he had received death threats and said that MPs got them “routinely”, telling Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “I think it’s sadly the case that many members have been threatened and, indeed, that has been the case in relation to me as well. “All of us, unfortunately, face threats of violence, death threats and so on, in varying degrees. I’ve never had one that has been of the most serious nature, but we routinely receive these kinds of threats,” Dowden added. Rishi Sunak said MPs had been “verbally threatened and physically, violently targeted” in recent weeks as protests were “hijacked by extremists to promote and glorify terrorism”. The prime minister added that it was “the latest in an emerging pattern which should not be tolerated”. Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, has come under pressure after he broke with protocol last week to allow votes on three separate propositions from the three main parties relating to a ceasefire in Gaza. Some Conservative and Scottish National party MPs have called for the speaker to resign over the decision, which ultimately benefited Labour by allowing it to dodge a difficult vote. By the end of the week 71 MPs had put their names to a motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle, and the SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, publicly said he thought Hoyle should go. An emotional Hoyle told MPs on Wednesday he had taken his decision because he was fearful of an attack on MPs. “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists,” he said. “I also don’t want another attack on this house.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion On Sky, Dowden refused to back Hoyle and said “the speaker has serious questions to answer about what happened and that’s what the leader of the house will be asking about on Monday”. The SNP is now pushing for a so-called “meaningful vote” on a ceasefire in Gaza and has written to Keir Starmer and Ed Davey inviting them to discussions about its wording. The SNP is proposing parliament mandates the UK government to use its position on the UN security council to vote for an immediate ceasefire, and follow the advice of independent UN experts to halt all transfers of military equipment and technology, including components, to Israel, and to suspend the issuing of new licences. Flynn said: “After the shameful scenes at Westminster last week, it’s vital the UK parliament urgently focuses on what really matters, doing everything we can to help secure an immediate ceasefire and lasting peace in Gaza and Israel.” The party claims its actions “forced” Starmer to do a U-turn on his opposition to calling for an immediate ceasefire and said MPs must “work together” to get Sunak to do the same. Explore more on these topics Lisa Nandy Israel-Gaza war Labour Conservatives news Share Reuse this content A shadow cabinet minister has spoken about how she carries a police alarm with her everywhere amid heightened concerns over the security of politicians. Labour MP Lisa Nandy , the shadow international development secretary, has spoken about the extra security precautions she has had to take, including only seeing her constituents by appointment. Speaking to Times Radio, Nandy said: “Instead of doing publicly advertised surgeries, we now do them by appointment. We have security present. I carry a police alarm everywhere that I go. I have security on my home. “And that is a really very typical experience for members of parliament … I went to a party meeting just last week and had people gathering around the entrance of that, shouting ‘genocide’ and accusing me and others of committing genocide. “We’ve had a couple of senior members of the shadow cabinet surrounded by people as they were going about canvassing, being filmed on their phones, and very aggressive comments about their own families. There was the Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, who had people outside of his home.” Several MPs across the Commons have spoken about the increase in abuse and threats since the outbreak of war in the Middle East in October. The Sunday Times reported that three female MPs have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . The women, who include both Labour and Tory MPs, had their security upgraded after a risk assessment. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, revealed on Sunday that he had received death threats and said that MPs got them “routinely”, telling Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “I think it’s sadly the case that many members have been threatened and, indeed, that has been the case in relation to me as well. “All of us, unfortunately, face threats of violence, death threats and so on, in varying degrees. I’ve never had one that has been of the most serious nature, but we routinely receive these kinds of threats,” Dowden added. Rishi Sunak said MPs had been “verbally threatened and physically, violently targeted” in recent weeks as protests were “hijacked by extremists to promote and glorify terrorism”. The prime minister added that it was “the latest in an emerging pattern which should not be tolerated”. Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, has come under pressure after he broke with protocol last week to allow votes on three separate propositions from the three main parties relating to a ceasefire in Gaza. Some Conservative and Scottish National party MPs have called for the speaker to resign over the decision, which ultimately benefited Labour by allowing it to dodge a difficult vote. By the end of the week 71 MPs had put their names to a motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle, and the SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, publicly said he thought Hoyle should go. An emotional Hoyle told MPs on Wednesday he had taken his decision because he was fearful of an attack on MPs. “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists,” he said. “I also don’t want another attack on this house.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion On Sky, Dowden refused to back Hoyle and said “the speaker has serious questions to answer about what happened and that’s what the leader of the house will be asking about on Monday”. The SNP is now pushing for a so-called “meaningful vote” on a ceasefire in Gaza and has written to Keir Starmer and Ed Davey inviting them to discussions about its wording. The SNP is proposing parliament mandates the UK government to use its position on the UN security council to vote for an immediate ceasefire, and follow the advice of independent UN experts to halt all transfers of military equipment and technology, including components, to Israel, and to suspend the issuing of new licences. Flynn said: “After the shameful scenes at Westminster last week, it’s vital the UK parliament urgently focuses on what really matters, doing everything we can to help secure an immediate ceasefire and lasting peace in Gaza and Israel.” The party claims its actions “forced” Starmer to do a U-turn on his opposition to calling for an immediate ceasefire and said MPs must “work together” to get Sunak to do the same. Explore more on these topics Lisa Nandy Israel-Gaza war Labour Conservatives news Share Reuse this content A shadow cabinet minister has spoken about how she carries a police alarm with her everywhere amid heightened concerns over the security of politicians. Labour MP Lisa Nandy , the shadow international development secretary, has spoken about the extra security precautions she has had to take, including only seeing her constituents by appointment. Speaking to Times Radio, Nandy said: “Instead of doing publicly advertised surgeries, we now do them by appointment. We have security present. I carry a police alarm everywhere that I go. I have security on my home. “And that is a really very typical experience for members of parliament … I went to a party meeting just last week and had people gathering around the entrance of that, shouting ‘genocide’ and accusing me and others of committing genocide. “We’ve had a couple of senior members of the shadow cabinet surrounded by people as they were going about canvassing, being filmed on their phones, and very aggressive comments about their own families. There was the Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, who had people outside of his home.” Several MPs across the Commons have spoken about the increase in abuse and threats since the outbreak of war in the Middle East in October. The Sunday Times reported that three female MPs have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . The women, who include both Labour and Tory MPs, had their security upgraded after a risk assessment. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, revealed on Sunday that he had received death threats and said that MPs got them “routinely”, telling Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “I think it’s sadly the case that many members have been threatened and, indeed, that has been the case in relation to me as well. “All of us, unfortunately, face threats of violence, death threats and so on, in varying degrees. I’ve never had one that has been of the most serious nature, but we routinely receive these kinds of threats,” Dowden added. Rishi Sunak said MPs had been “verbally threatened and physically, violently targeted” in recent weeks as protests were “hijacked by extremists to promote and glorify terrorism”. The prime minister added that it was “the latest in an emerging pattern which should not be tolerated”. Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, has come under pressure after he broke with protocol last week to allow votes on three separate propositions from the three main parties relating to a ceasefire in Gaza. Some Conservative and Scottish National party MPs have called for the speaker to resign over the decision, which ultimately benefited Labour by allowing it to dodge a difficult vote. By the end of the week 71 MPs had put their names to a motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle, and the SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, publicly said he thought Hoyle should go. An emotional Hoyle told MPs on Wednesday he had taken his decision because he was fearful of an attack on MPs. “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists,” he said. “I also don’t want another attack on this house.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion On Sky, Dowden refused to back Hoyle and said “the speaker has serious questions to answer about what happened and that’s what the leader of the house will be asking about on Monday”. The SNP is now pushing for a so-called “meaningful vote” on a ceasefire in Gaza and has written to Keir Starmer and Ed Davey inviting them to discussions about its wording. The SNP is proposing parliament mandates the UK government to use its position on the UN security council to vote for an immediate ceasefire, and follow the advice of independent UN experts to halt all transfers of military equipment and technology, including components, to Israel, and to suspend the issuing of new licences. Flynn said: “After the shameful scenes at Westminster last week, it’s vital the UK parliament urgently focuses on what really matters, doing everything we can to help secure an immediate ceasefire and lasting peace in Gaza and Israel.” The party claims its actions “forced” Starmer to do a U-turn on his opposition to calling for an immediate ceasefire and said MPs must “work together” to get Sunak to do the same. A shadow cabinet minister has spoken about how she carries a police alarm with her everywhere amid heightened concerns over the security of politicians. Labour MP Lisa Nandy , the shadow international development secretary, has spoken about the extra security precautions she has had to take, including only seeing her constituents by appointment. Speaking to Times Radio, Nandy said: “Instead of doing publicly advertised surgeries, we now do them by appointment. We have security present. I carry a police alarm everywhere that I go. I have security on my home. “And that is a really very typical experience for members of parliament … I went to a party meeting just last week and had people gathering around the entrance of that, shouting ‘genocide’ and accusing me and others of committing genocide. “We’ve had a couple of senior members of the shadow cabinet surrounded by people as they were going about canvassing, being filmed on their phones, and very aggressive comments about their own families. There was the Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, who had people outside of his home.” Several MPs across the Commons have spoken about the increase in abuse and threats since the outbreak of war in the Middle East in October. The Sunday Times reported that three female MPs have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . The women, who include both Labour and Tory MPs, had their security upgraded after a risk assessment. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, revealed on Sunday that he had received death threats and said that MPs got them “routinely”, telling Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “I think it’s sadly the case that many members have been threatened and, indeed, that has been the case in relation to me as well. “All of us, unfortunately, face threats of violence, death threats and so on, in varying degrees. I’ve never had one that has been of the most serious nature, but we routinely receive these kinds of threats,” Dowden added. Rishi Sunak said MPs had been “verbally threatened and physically, violently targeted” in recent weeks as protests were “hijacked by extremists to promote and glorify terrorism”. The prime minister added that it was “the latest in an emerging pattern which should not be tolerated”. Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, has come under pressure after he broke with protocol last week to allow votes on three separate propositions from the three main parties relating to a ceasefire in Gaza. Some Conservative and Scottish National party MPs have called for the speaker to resign over the decision, which ultimately benefited Labour by allowing it to dodge a difficult vote. By the end of the week 71 MPs had put their names to a motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle, and the SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, publicly said he thought Hoyle should go. An emotional Hoyle told MPs on Wednesday he had taken his decision because he was fearful of an attack on MPs. “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists,” he said. “I also don’t want another attack on this house.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion On Sky, Dowden refused to back Hoyle and said “the speaker has serious questions to answer about what happened and that’s what the leader of the house will be asking about on Monday”. The SNP is now pushing for a so-called “meaningful vote” on a ceasefire in Gaza and has written to Keir Starmer and Ed Davey inviting them to discussions about its wording. The SNP is proposing parliament mandates the UK government to use its position on the UN security council to vote for an immediate ceasefire, and follow the advice of independent UN experts to halt all transfers of military equipment and technology, including components, to Israel, and to suspend the issuing of new licences. Flynn said: “After the shameful scenes at Westminster last week, it’s vital the UK parliament urgently focuses on what really matters, doing everything we can to help secure an immediate ceasefire and lasting peace in Gaza and Israel.” The party claims its actions “forced” Starmer to do a U-turn on his opposition to calling for an immediate ceasefire and said MPs must “work together” to get Sunak to do the same. A shadow cabinet minister has spoken about how she carries a police alarm with her everywhere amid heightened concerns over the security of politicians. Labour MP Lisa Nandy , the shadow international development secretary, has spoken about the extra security precautions she has had to take, including only seeing her constituents by appointment. Speaking to Times Radio, Nandy said: “Instead of doing publicly advertised surgeries, we now do them by appointment. We have security present. I carry a police alarm everywhere that I go. I have security on my home. “And that is a really very typical experience for members of parliament … I went to a party meeting just last week and had people gathering around the entrance of that, shouting ‘genocide’ and accusing me and others of committing genocide. “We’ve had a couple of senior members of the shadow cabinet surrounded by people as they were going about canvassing, being filmed on their phones, and very aggressive comments about their own families. There was the Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, who had people outside of his home.” Several MPs across the Commons have spoken about the increase in abuse and threats since the outbreak of war in the Middle East in October. The Sunday Times reported that three female MPs have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . The women, who include both Labour and Tory MPs, had their security upgraded after a risk assessment. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, revealed on Sunday that he had received death threats and said that MPs got them “routinely”, telling Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: “I think it’s sadly the case that many members have been threatened and, indeed, that has been the case in relation to me as well. “All of us, unfortunately, face threats of violence, death threats and so on, in varying degrees. I’ve never had one that has been of the most serious nature, but we routinely receive these kinds of threats,” Dowden added. Rishi Sunak said MPs had been “verbally threatened and physically, violently targeted” in recent weeks as protests were “hijacked by extremists to promote and glorify terrorism”. The prime minister added that it was “the latest in an emerging pattern which should not be tolerated”. Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, has come under pressure after he broke with protocol last week to allow votes on three separate propositions from the three main parties relating to a ceasefire in Gaza. Some Conservative and Scottish National party MPs have called for the speaker to resign over the decision, which ultimately benefited Labour by allowing it to dodge a difficult vote. By the end of the week 71 MPs had put their names to a motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle, and the SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, publicly said he thought Hoyle should go. An emotional Hoyle told MPs on Wednesday he had taken his decision because he was fearful of an attack on MPs. “I don’t ever want to go through the situation of picking up a phone to find that a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists,” he said. “I also don’t want another attack on this house.” On Sky, Dowden refused to back Hoyle and said “the speaker has serious questions to answer about what happened and that’s what the leader of the house will be asking about on Monday”. The SNP is now pushing for a so-called “meaningful vote” on a ceasefire in Gaza and has written to Keir Starmer and Ed Davey inviting them to discussions about its wording. The SNP is proposing parliament mandates the UK government to use its position on the UN security council to vote for an immediate ceasefire, and follow the advice of independent UN experts to halt all transfers of military equipment and technology, including components, to Israel, and to suspend the issuing of new licences. Flynn said: “After the shameful scenes at Westminster last week, it’s vital the UK parliament urgently focuses on what really matters, doing everything we can to help secure an immediate ceasefire and lasting peace in Gaza and Israel.” The party claims its actions “forced” Starmer to do a U-turn on his opposition to calling for an immediate ceasefire and said MPs must “work together” to get Sunak to do the same. Explore more on these topics Lisa Nandy Israel-Gaza war Labour Conservatives news Share Reuse this content Lisa Nandy Israel-Gaza war Labour Conservatives news |
Sunak stands with net zero and climate conspiracy group at farming protest
Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA This article is more than 1 year old Sunak stands with net zero and climate conspiracy group at farming protest This article is more than 1 year old Demonstration against Welsh Labour policy included No Farmers No Food campaign calling for end to climate measures, and Welsh Tory leader Rishi Sunak attended a protest alongside a group which has posted conspiracy theories about climate change, and which campaigns against net zero, the Observer can reveal. The prime minister has been accused of “pandering to extremists” by farmers and wildlife groups, who have asked him to “listen to reason and logic” rather than conspiracy theories. Sunak has been making a concerted effort to improve his party’s standing in rural areas after polling showed the majority of countryside seats are likely to be lost to Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the next general election. Last week, he gave the keynote address at the National Farmers’ Union conference where he told farmers “I have your back.” On Friday, he attended a farmers’ protest against the Welsh Labour government, which is proposing to bring in a new payments scheme in which farmers will have to prove 10% of their land is woodland and 10% of it is quality habitat for wildlife. He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”. Wyn Jones is a leading supporter of the campaign, which was started and is being run by James Melville, a GB News pundit and communications consultant. Sunak joined in the protest, along with Andrew RT Davies the Welsh Conservatives leader, telling those assembled with their tractors that they had been “treated as Labour’s laboratory”. Speaking to Wyn Jones, he said the new subsidies scheme was “absolutely not right, the impact it will have on your jobs, your livelihoods, your incomes and food production around the country. It’s simply wrong.” The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero. Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures. The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, retweeting a post from former LBC host Maajid Nawaz that said: “Farmers stand between us and WEF’s desire for us to EAT BUGS, own nothing and be happy.” Melville also shared a post with the conspiracist claim which stated: “Between Bill Gates, the CCP & the WEF, we’re going to have no private farmland left. They want you eating bugs.” Melville has also shared fake news that local councils are forcing people into “climate lockdowns” and added: “Endless project fear. Very similar vibes on climate/net zero given off by the same people who pushed for lockdowns. And similar vilification issued against anyone who dares to question the narrative.” Craig Bennett, CEO of the Wildlife Trusts, said the prime minister’s appearance at the protest was “deeply worrying”, adding: “Rather than pandering to extremists who don’t know what they’re talking about, Sunak should be talking to the farmers who are doing their utmost to alleviate biodiversity loss and the impacts of climate change. It would be nice if the prime minister paid a bit more attention to science, reason and logic.” Arable farmer Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network added: “We are already seeing significant impacts to our businesses and food production because of climate change and all the science says it is going to get significantly worse if we don’t reduce emissions. I find it very disappointing that the prime minister has gone to a protest for a group where one of their key asks is no to net zero measures.” A government spokesperson did not address the claims, but said: “We are on the side of farmers and – just this week – we announced a major new package of support for rural communities to protect British farming for the next generation. ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms Read more “This includes the largest ever grant offer for farmers in the coming financial year, expected to total £427m, including an unprecedented package of funding for technology and productivity schemes.” Melville told the Observer : “These are individual views and not to do with the campaign which includes a lot of different credible people. The farming campaign is not a slavish obsession with net zero, far from it. It is to point out a number of key issues.” On the opinions about climate lockdowns and the WEF forcing people to eat bugs, he said: “Every individual has a number of different viewpoints that they can openly express without being accused of being a conspiracy theorist.” He added that these climate views are not related to the farming campaign but are personal views. Gareth Wyn Jones has been contacted for comment. This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak The Observer Wales Conservatives GB News Farming Welsh government Welsh politics news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA This article is more than 1 year old Sunak stands with net zero and climate conspiracy group at farming protest This article is more than 1 year old Demonstration against Welsh Labour policy included No Farmers No Food campaign calling for end to climate measures, and Welsh Tory leader Rishi Sunak attended a protest alongside a group which has posted conspiracy theories about climate change, and which campaigns against net zero, the Observer can reveal. The prime minister has been accused of “pandering to extremists” by farmers and wildlife groups, who have asked him to “listen to reason and logic” rather than conspiracy theories. Sunak has been making a concerted effort to improve his party’s standing in rural areas after polling showed the majority of countryside seats are likely to be lost to Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the next general election. Last week, he gave the keynote address at the National Farmers’ Union conference where he told farmers “I have your back.” On Friday, he attended a farmers’ protest against the Welsh Labour government, which is proposing to bring in a new payments scheme in which farmers will have to prove 10% of their land is woodland and 10% of it is quality habitat for wildlife. He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”. Wyn Jones is a leading supporter of the campaign, which was started and is being run by James Melville, a GB News pundit and communications consultant. Sunak joined in the protest, along with Andrew RT Davies the Welsh Conservatives leader, telling those assembled with their tractors that they had been “treated as Labour’s laboratory”. Speaking to Wyn Jones, he said the new subsidies scheme was “absolutely not right, the impact it will have on your jobs, your livelihoods, your incomes and food production around the country. It’s simply wrong.” The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero. Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures. The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, retweeting a post from former LBC host Maajid Nawaz that said: “Farmers stand between us and WEF’s desire for us to EAT BUGS, own nothing and be happy.” Melville also shared a post with the conspiracist claim which stated: “Between Bill Gates, the CCP & the WEF, we’re going to have no private farmland left. They want you eating bugs.” Melville has also shared fake news that local councils are forcing people into “climate lockdowns” and added: “Endless project fear. Very similar vibes on climate/net zero given off by the same people who pushed for lockdowns. And similar vilification issued against anyone who dares to question the narrative.” Craig Bennett, CEO of the Wildlife Trusts, said the prime minister’s appearance at the protest was “deeply worrying”, adding: “Rather than pandering to extremists who don’t know what they’re talking about, Sunak should be talking to the farmers who are doing their utmost to alleviate biodiversity loss and the impacts of climate change. It would be nice if the prime minister paid a bit more attention to science, reason and logic.” Arable farmer Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network added: “We are already seeing significant impacts to our businesses and food production because of climate change and all the science says it is going to get significantly worse if we don’t reduce emissions. I find it very disappointing that the prime minister has gone to a protest for a group where one of their key asks is no to net zero measures.” A government spokesperson did not address the claims, but said: “We are on the side of farmers and – just this week – we announced a major new package of support for rural communities to protect British farming for the next generation. ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms Read more “This includes the largest ever grant offer for farmers in the coming financial year, expected to total £427m, including an unprecedented package of funding for technology and productivity schemes.” Melville told the Observer : “These are individual views and not to do with the campaign which includes a lot of different credible people. The farming campaign is not a slavish obsession with net zero, far from it. It is to point out a number of key issues.” On the opinions about climate lockdowns and the WEF forcing people to eat bugs, he said: “Every individual has a number of different viewpoints that they can openly express without being accused of being a conspiracy theorist.” He added that these climate views are not related to the farming campaign but are personal views. Gareth Wyn Jones has been contacted for comment. This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak The Observer Wales Conservatives GB News Farming Welsh government Welsh politics news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA Rishi Sunak speaking with farmers after he delivered a speech at the Welsh Conservatives conference 2024. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA This article is more than 1 year old Sunak stands with net zero and climate conspiracy group at farming protest This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sunak stands with net zero and climate conspiracy group at farming protest This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sunak stands with net zero and climate conspiracy group at farming protest This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Demonstration against Welsh Labour policy included No Farmers No Food campaign calling for end to climate measures, and Welsh Tory leader Demonstration against Welsh Labour policy included No Farmers No Food campaign calling for end to climate measures, and Welsh Tory leader Demonstration against Welsh Labour policy included No Farmers No Food campaign calling for end to climate measures, and Welsh Tory leader Rishi Sunak attended a protest alongside a group which has posted conspiracy theories about climate change, and which campaigns against net zero, the Observer can reveal. The prime minister has been accused of “pandering to extremists” by farmers and wildlife groups, who have asked him to “listen to reason and logic” rather than conspiracy theories. Sunak has been making a concerted effort to improve his party’s standing in rural areas after polling showed the majority of countryside seats are likely to be lost to Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the next general election. Last week, he gave the keynote address at the National Farmers’ Union conference where he told farmers “I have your back.” On Friday, he attended a farmers’ protest against the Welsh Labour government, which is proposing to bring in a new payments scheme in which farmers will have to prove 10% of their land is woodland and 10% of it is quality habitat for wildlife. He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”. Wyn Jones is a leading supporter of the campaign, which was started and is being run by James Melville, a GB News pundit and communications consultant. Sunak joined in the protest, along with Andrew RT Davies the Welsh Conservatives leader, telling those assembled with their tractors that they had been “treated as Labour’s laboratory”. Speaking to Wyn Jones, he said the new subsidies scheme was “absolutely not right, the impact it will have on your jobs, your livelihoods, your incomes and food production around the country. It’s simply wrong.” The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero. Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures. The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, retweeting a post from former LBC host Maajid Nawaz that said: “Farmers stand between us and WEF’s desire for us to EAT BUGS, own nothing and be happy.” Melville also shared a post with the conspiracist claim which stated: “Between Bill Gates, the CCP & the WEF, we’re going to have no private farmland left. They want you eating bugs.” Melville has also shared fake news that local councils are forcing people into “climate lockdowns” and added: “Endless project fear. Very similar vibes on climate/net zero given off by the same people who pushed for lockdowns. And similar vilification issued against anyone who dares to question the narrative.” Craig Bennett, CEO of the Wildlife Trusts, said the prime minister’s appearance at the protest was “deeply worrying”, adding: “Rather than pandering to extremists who don’t know what they’re talking about, Sunak should be talking to the farmers who are doing their utmost to alleviate biodiversity loss and the impacts of climate change. It would be nice if the prime minister paid a bit more attention to science, reason and logic.” Arable farmer Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network added: “We are already seeing significant impacts to our businesses and food production because of climate change and all the science says it is going to get significantly worse if we don’t reduce emissions. I find it very disappointing that the prime minister has gone to a protest for a group where one of their key asks is no to net zero measures.” A government spokesperson did not address the claims, but said: “We are on the side of farmers and – just this week – we announced a major new package of support for rural communities to protect British farming for the next generation. ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms Read more “This includes the largest ever grant offer for farmers in the coming financial year, expected to total £427m, including an unprecedented package of funding for technology and productivity schemes.” Melville told the Observer : “These are individual views and not to do with the campaign which includes a lot of different credible people. The farming campaign is not a slavish obsession with net zero, far from it. It is to point out a number of key issues.” On the opinions about climate lockdowns and the WEF forcing people to eat bugs, he said: “Every individual has a number of different viewpoints that they can openly express without being accused of being a conspiracy theorist.” He added that these climate views are not related to the farming campaign but are personal views. Gareth Wyn Jones has been contacted for comment. This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak The Observer Wales Conservatives GB News Farming Welsh government Welsh politics news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak attended a protest alongside a group which has posted conspiracy theories about climate change, and which campaigns against net zero, the Observer can reveal. The prime minister has been accused of “pandering to extremists” by farmers and wildlife groups, who have asked him to “listen to reason and logic” rather than conspiracy theories. Sunak has been making a concerted effort to improve his party’s standing in rural areas after polling showed the majority of countryside seats are likely to be lost to Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the next general election. Last week, he gave the keynote address at the National Farmers’ Union conference where he told farmers “I have your back.” On Friday, he attended a farmers’ protest against the Welsh Labour government, which is proposing to bring in a new payments scheme in which farmers will have to prove 10% of their land is woodland and 10% of it is quality habitat for wildlife. He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”. Wyn Jones is a leading supporter of the campaign, which was started and is being run by James Melville, a GB News pundit and communications consultant. Sunak joined in the protest, along with Andrew RT Davies the Welsh Conservatives leader, telling those assembled with their tractors that they had been “treated as Labour’s laboratory”. Speaking to Wyn Jones, he said the new subsidies scheme was “absolutely not right, the impact it will have on your jobs, your livelihoods, your incomes and food production around the country. It’s simply wrong.” The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero. Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures. The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, retweeting a post from former LBC host Maajid Nawaz that said: “Farmers stand between us and WEF’s desire for us to EAT BUGS, own nothing and be happy.” Melville also shared a post with the conspiracist claim which stated: “Between Bill Gates, the CCP & the WEF, we’re going to have no private farmland left. They want you eating bugs.” Melville has also shared fake news that local councils are forcing people into “climate lockdowns” and added: “Endless project fear. Very similar vibes on climate/net zero given off by the same people who pushed for lockdowns. And similar vilification issued against anyone who dares to question the narrative.” Craig Bennett, CEO of the Wildlife Trusts, said the prime minister’s appearance at the protest was “deeply worrying”, adding: “Rather than pandering to extremists who don’t know what they’re talking about, Sunak should be talking to the farmers who are doing their utmost to alleviate biodiversity loss and the impacts of climate change. It would be nice if the prime minister paid a bit more attention to science, reason and logic.” Arable farmer Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network added: “We are already seeing significant impacts to our businesses and food production because of climate change and all the science says it is going to get significantly worse if we don’t reduce emissions. I find it very disappointing that the prime minister has gone to a protest for a group where one of their key asks is no to net zero measures.” A government spokesperson did not address the claims, but said: “We are on the side of farmers and – just this week – we announced a major new package of support for rural communities to protect British farming for the next generation. ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms Read more “This includes the largest ever grant offer for farmers in the coming financial year, expected to total £427m, including an unprecedented package of funding for technology and productivity schemes.” Melville told the Observer : “These are individual views and not to do with the campaign which includes a lot of different credible people. The farming campaign is not a slavish obsession with net zero, far from it. It is to point out a number of key issues.” On the opinions about climate lockdowns and the WEF forcing people to eat bugs, he said: “Every individual has a number of different viewpoints that they can openly express without being accused of being a conspiracy theorist.” He added that these climate views are not related to the farming campaign but are personal views. Gareth Wyn Jones has been contacted for comment. This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak The Observer Wales Conservatives GB News Farming Welsh government Welsh politics news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak attended a protest alongside a group which has posted conspiracy theories about climate change, and which campaigns against net zero, the Observer can reveal. The prime minister has been accused of “pandering to extremists” by farmers and wildlife groups, who have asked him to “listen to reason and logic” rather than conspiracy theories. Sunak has been making a concerted effort to improve his party’s standing in rural areas after polling showed the majority of countryside seats are likely to be lost to Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the next general election. Last week, he gave the keynote address at the National Farmers’ Union conference where he told farmers “I have your back.” On Friday, he attended a farmers’ protest against the Welsh Labour government, which is proposing to bring in a new payments scheme in which farmers will have to prove 10% of their land is woodland and 10% of it is quality habitat for wildlife. He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”. Wyn Jones is a leading supporter of the campaign, which was started and is being run by James Melville, a GB News pundit and communications consultant. Sunak joined in the protest, along with Andrew RT Davies the Welsh Conservatives leader, telling those assembled with their tractors that they had been “treated as Labour’s laboratory”. Speaking to Wyn Jones, he said the new subsidies scheme was “absolutely not right, the impact it will have on your jobs, your livelihoods, your incomes and food production around the country. It’s simply wrong.” The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero. Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures. The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, retweeting a post from former LBC host Maajid Nawaz that said: “Farmers stand between us and WEF’s desire for us to EAT BUGS, own nothing and be happy.” Melville also shared a post with the conspiracist claim which stated: “Between Bill Gates, the CCP & the WEF, we’re going to have no private farmland left. They want you eating bugs.” Melville has also shared fake news that local councils are forcing people into “climate lockdowns” and added: “Endless project fear. Very similar vibes on climate/net zero given off by the same people who pushed for lockdowns. And similar vilification issued against anyone who dares to question the narrative.” Craig Bennett, CEO of the Wildlife Trusts, said the prime minister’s appearance at the protest was “deeply worrying”, adding: “Rather than pandering to extremists who don’t know what they’re talking about, Sunak should be talking to the farmers who are doing their utmost to alleviate biodiversity loss and the impacts of climate change. It would be nice if the prime minister paid a bit more attention to science, reason and logic.” Arable farmer Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network added: “We are already seeing significant impacts to our businesses and food production because of climate change and all the science says it is going to get significantly worse if we don’t reduce emissions. I find it very disappointing that the prime minister has gone to a protest for a group where one of their key asks is no to net zero measures.” A government spokesperson did not address the claims, but said: “We are on the side of farmers and – just this week – we announced a major new package of support for rural communities to protect British farming for the next generation. ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms Read more “This includes the largest ever grant offer for farmers in the coming financial year, expected to total £427m, including an unprecedented package of funding for technology and productivity schemes.” Melville told the Observer : “These are individual views and not to do with the campaign which includes a lot of different credible people. The farming campaign is not a slavish obsession with net zero, far from it. It is to point out a number of key issues.” On the opinions about climate lockdowns and the WEF forcing people to eat bugs, he said: “Every individual has a number of different viewpoints that they can openly express without being accused of being a conspiracy theorist.” He added that these climate views are not related to the farming campaign but are personal views. Gareth Wyn Jones has been contacted for comment. Rishi Sunak attended a protest alongside a group which has posted conspiracy theories about climate change, and which campaigns against net zero, the Observer can reveal. The prime minister has been accused of “pandering to extremists” by farmers and wildlife groups, who have asked him to “listen to reason and logic” rather than conspiracy theories. Sunak has been making a concerted effort to improve his party’s standing in rural areas after polling showed the majority of countryside seats are likely to be lost to Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the next general election. Last week, he gave the keynote address at the National Farmers’ Union conference where he told farmers “I have your back.” On Friday, he attended a farmers’ protest against the Welsh Labour government, which is proposing to bring in a new payments scheme in which farmers will have to prove 10% of their land is woodland and 10% of it is quality habitat for wildlife. He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”. Wyn Jones is a leading supporter of the campaign, which was started and is being run by James Melville, a GB News pundit and communications consultant. Sunak joined in the protest, along with Andrew RT Davies the Welsh Conservatives leader, telling those assembled with their tractors that they had been “treated as Labour’s laboratory”. Speaking to Wyn Jones, he said the new subsidies scheme was “absolutely not right, the impact it will have on your jobs, your livelihoods, your incomes and food production around the country. It’s simply wrong.” The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero. Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures. The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, retweeting a post from former LBC host Maajid Nawaz that said: “Farmers stand between us and WEF’s desire for us to EAT BUGS, own nothing and be happy.” Melville also shared a post with the conspiracist claim which stated: “Between Bill Gates, the CCP & the WEF, we’re going to have no private farmland left. They want you eating bugs.” Melville has also shared fake news that local councils are forcing people into “climate lockdowns” and added: “Endless project fear. Very similar vibes on climate/net zero given off by the same people who pushed for lockdowns. And similar vilification issued against anyone who dares to question the narrative.” Craig Bennett, CEO of the Wildlife Trusts, said the prime minister’s appearance at the protest was “deeply worrying”, adding: “Rather than pandering to extremists who don’t know what they’re talking about, Sunak should be talking to the farmers who are doing their utmost to alleviate biodiversity loss and the impacts of climate change. It would be nice if the prime minister paid a bit more attention to science, reason and logic.” Arable farmer Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network added: “We are already seeing significant impacts to our businesses and food production because of climate change and all the science says it is going to get significantly worse if we don’t reduce emissions. I find it very disappointing that the prime minister has gone to a protest for a group where one of their key asks is no to net zero measures.” A government spokesperson did not address the claims, but said: “We are on the side of farmers and – just this week – we announced a major new package of support for rural communities to protect British farming for the next generation. ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms Read more “This includes the largest ever grant offer for farmers in the coming financial year, expected to total £427m, including an unprecedented package of funding for technology and productivity schemes.” Melville told the Observer : “These are individual views and not to do with the campaign which includes a lot of different credible people. The farming campaign is not a slavish obsession with net zero, far from it. It is to point out a number of key issues.” On the opinions about climate lockdowns and the WEF forcing people to eat bugs, he said: “Every individual has a number of different viewpoints that they can openly express without being accused of being a conspiracy theorist.” He added that these climate views are not related to the farming campaign but are personal views. Gareth Wyn Jones has been contacted for comment. Rishi Sunak attended a protest alongside a group which has posted conspiracy theories about climate change, and which campaigns against net zero, the Observer can reveal. The prime minister has been accused of “pandering to extremists” by farmers and wildlife groups, who have asked him to “listen to reason and logic” rather than conspiracy theories. Sunak has been making a concerted effort to improve his party’s standing in rural areas after polling showed the majority of countryside seats are likely to be lost to Labour and the Liberal Democrats at the next general election. Last week, he gave the keynote address at the National Farmers’ Union conference where he told farmers “I have your back.” On Friday, he attended a farmers’ protest against the Welsh Labour government, which is proposing to bring in a new payments scheme in which farmers will have to prove 10% of their land is woodland and 10% of it is quality habitat for wildlife. He appeared alongside farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and stood next to placards emblazoned with the logo for the campaign “No Farmers No Food”. Wyn Jones is a leading supporter of the campaign, which was started and is being run by James Melville, a GB News pundit and communications consultant. Sunak joined in the protest, along with Andrew RT Davies the Welsh Conservatives leader, telling those assembled with their tractors that they had been “treated as Labour’s laboratory”. Speaking to Wyn Jones, he said the new subsidies scheme was “absolutely not right, the impact it will have on your jobs, your livelihoods, your incomes and food production around the country. It’s simply wrong.” The No Farmers No Food campaign is anti net-zero and has shared conspiracy theories about climate change action, while Melville has questioned the effects of climate breakdown as well as sharing conspiracy theories about net zero. Its manifesto accuses the UK government of having an “obsession with net zero” and calls for it to end climate measures. The Twitter/X account for the group shared a conspiracy theory that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is going to force people to eat bugs to reach net zero, retweeting a post from former LBC host Maajid Nawaz that said: “Farmers stand between us and WEF’s desire for us to EAT BUGS, own nothing and be happy.” Melville also shared a post with the conspiracist claim which stated: “Between Bill Gates, the CCP & the WEF, we’re going to have no private farmland left. They want you eating bugs.” Melville has also shared fake news that local councils are forcing people into “climate lockdowns” and added: “Endless project fear. Very similar vibes on climate/net zero given off by the same people who pushed for lockdowns. And similar vilification issued against anyone who dares to question the narrative.” Craig Bennett, CEO of the Wildlife Trusts, said the prime minister’s appearance at the protest was “deeply worrying”, adding: “Rather than pandering to extremists who don’t know what they’re talking about, Sunak should be talking to the farmers who are doing their utmost to alleviate biodiversity loss and the impacts of climate change. It would be nice if the prime minister paid a bit more attention to science, reason and logic.” Arable farmer Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network added: “We are already seeing significant impacts to our businesses and food production because of climate change and all the science says it is going to get significantly worse if we don’t reduce emissions. I find it very disappointing that the prime minister has gone to a protest for a group where one of their key asks is no to net zero measures.” A government spokesperson did not address the claims, but said: “We are on the side of farmers and – just this week – we announced a major new package of support for rural communities to protect British farming for the next generation. ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms Read more ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms Read more ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms Read more ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms ‘Our yields are going to be appalling’: one of wettest winters in decades hits England’s farms “This includes the largest ever grant offer for farmers in the coming financial year, expected to total £427m, including an unprecedented package of funding for technology and productivity schemes.” Melville told the Observer : “These are individual views and not to do with the campaign which includes a lot of different credible people. The farming campaign is not a slavish obsession with net zero, far from it. It is to point out a number of key issues.” On the opinions about climate lockdowns and the WEF forcing people to eat bugs, he said: “Every individual has a number of different viewpoints that they can openly express without being accused of being a conspiracy theorist.” He added that these climate views are not related to the farming campaign but are personal views. Gareth Wyn Jones has been contacted for comment. This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak The Observer Wales Conservatives GB News Farming Welsh government Welsh politics news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak The Observer Wales Conservatives GB News Farming Welsh government Welsh politics news |
Farmers clash with riot police in Brussels as EU agriculture leaders meet
1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video This article is more than 1 year old Farmers clash with riot police in Brussels as EU agriculture leaders meet This article is more than 1 year old Belgian capital blocked by 900 tractors amid protests throughout bloc demanding policy changes Farmers have clashed violently with police in the European quarter of Brussels, spraying officers with liquid manure and setting fire to mounds of tyres, while the EU’s agriculture ministers met to discuss the crisis in their sector. As farmers also protested in Madrid and on the Polish-German border, at least 900 tractors jammed streets in the centre of the Belgian capital, police said, with protesters throwing bottles and eggs and setting off fireworks while riot police fired water cannon. Farmers from Spain, Portugal and Italy joined their Belgian counterparts for the latest show of force by a months-long, Europe-wide movement demanding action on high costs, low product prices, cheap non-EU imports and strict EU environmental rules. View image in fullscreen Farmers blocked the streets of central Brussels by bringing at least 900 tractors into the city. Photograph: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images The rolling protests, which on Saturday led to the French president, Emmanuel Macron, being heckled by furious farmers at the Paris agricultural fair , have unnerved leaders before European elections in June that are likely to produce major gains for far-right populist parties. Ministers were meeting to debate European Commission proposals to ease the pressure on farmers, including simplifying the bloc’s common agricultural policy (CAP) by reducing farm inspections and exempting small farms from some green rules. “We need something practical, something operational,” said the French agriculture minister, Marc Fesneau, adding that while there was room for “adjustments within the current rules,” meeting some demands “would require changing the legislation”. View image in fullscreen Some protesters in Brussels threw bottles and eggs at riot police, who responded by firing water cannon. Photograph: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images Fesneau said it did not matter whether the changes were made before or after the European parliament elections, but “what matters now is moving forward. We need to set a goal, lay the foundations of a CAP that reassures people.” Germany’s agriculture minister, Cem Özdemir, said the EU needed to ensure farmers could make a fair living if they opted for biodiversity and environmental measures. He said the average farmer “spends a quarter of their time at their desks” because of the EU’s “bureaucracy monster”. David Clarinval, the Belgian agriculture minister, said farmers’ complaints had been “clearly heard” but urged them to refrain from violence, while the Irish agriculture minister, Charlie McConalogue said the priority must be to slash red tape. View image in fullscreen A farmer spraying manure at riot police in Brussels on Monday. Photograph: Harry Nakos/AP The EU should ensure that policies were “straightforward, that they’re proportionate and they’re as simple as possible for farmers to implement”, he said, underlining that “we do respect the massively important work that farmers carry out every day in terms of producing food”. The EU has already rowed back on several parts of its flagship green deal plan in an effort to appease farmers, scrapping references to farming emissions from its 2040 climate roadmap, withdrawing a law to cut pesticide use and delaying a target for farmers to leave some land fallow to improve biodiversity. The bloc has also introduced safeguards to stop Ukrainian imports flooding the market under a tariff-free scheme introduced after Russia’s 2022 invasion. View image in fullscreen Riot police out in force at an agricultural show in France on Saturday where the president, Emmanuel Macron, was heckled. Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images The protest was farmers’ second in Brussels in recent weeks. “We are getting ignored,” said Marieke Van De Vivere, a farmer from Belgium’s Ghent region. She said ministers should “be reasonable to us, come with us on a day to work on the field, or with the horses or with the animals, to see that it is not very easy … because of the rules they put on us”. Morgan Ody, from La Via Campesina small farmers’ organisation, said that for most farmers it was “about income. It’s about the fact that we are poor, and that we want to make a decent living,” Ody said. She called on the EU to set up minimum support prices and exit free trade agreements that enable the import of cheaper foreign produce. “We are not against climate policies. But we know that in order to do the transition, we need higher prices for products because it costs more to produce in an ecological way,” she said. View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers protested in Madrid on Monday. Photograph: JJ Guillen/EPA Farmers also protested on Monday in Madrid, blowing whistles, ringing cowbells and beating drums as they demanded that the EU cut red tape and drop some of the CAP. “The new CAP is ruining our lives,” said Juan Pedro Laguna, 46. Roberto Rodriguez, who grows cereal and beetroots in the central province of Avila, said it was “impossible to stand these rules, they want us to work on the field during the day and deal with paperwork at night – we’re sick of the bureaucracy”. Polish farmers protesting against EU regulations and cheap food imports from Ukraine blocked a motorway at a busy border crossing with Germany on Monday and plan to protest in the Polish capital, Warsaw, on Tuesday. View image in fullscreen Polish farmers blocked a busy motorway crossing at the border with Germany on Monday. Photograph: John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images Adrian Wawrzyniak, a spokesperson for the Solidarity farmers’ union, said that as far as he knew “there are also German farmers on the German side – the crossing is blocked from both sides. This is a show of joint solidarity.” Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Monday that farmers’ problems needed fixing at an EU level. “Poland is the first EU country [on the border with Ukraine], but in fact it is a problem of the EU as a whole, of EU agriculture as a whole, and it should be considered in this context,” he told a press conference. Explore more on these topics Farming European Union Europe Belgium Germany Poland France news Share Reuse this content 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video This article is more than 1 year old Farmers clash with riot police in Brussels as EU agriculture leaders meet This article is more than 1 year old Belgian capital blocked by 900 tractors amid protests throughout bloc demanding policy changes Farmers have clashed violently with police in the European quarter of Brussels, spraying officers with liquid manure and setting fire to mounds of tyres, while the EU’s agriculture ministers met to discuss the crisis in their sector. As farmers also protested in Madrid and on the Polish-German border, at least 900 tractors jammed streets in the centre of the Belgian capital, police said, with protesters throwing bottles and eggs and setting off fireworks while riot police fired water cannon. Farmers from Spain, Portugal and Italy joined their Belgian counterparts for the latest show of force by a months-long, Europe-wide movement demanding action on high costs, low product prices, cheap non-EU imports and strict EU environmental rules. View image in fullscreen Farmers blocked the streets of central Brussels by bringing at least 900 tractors into the city. Photograph: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images The rolling protests, which on Saturday led to the French president, Emmanuel Macron, being heckled by furious farmers at the Paris agricultural fair , have unnerved leaders before European elections in June that are likely to produce major gains for far-right populist parties. Ministers were meeting to debate European Commission proposals to ease the pressure on farmers, including simplifying the bloc’s common agricultural policy (CAP) by reducing farm inspections and exempting small farms from some green rules. “We need something practical, something operational,” said the French agriculture minister, Marc Fesneau, adding that while there was room for “adjustments within the current rules,” meeting some demands “would require changing the legislation”. View image in fullscreen Some protesters in Brussels threw bottles and eggs at riot police, who responded by firing water cannon. Photograph: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images Fesneau said it did not matter whether the changes were made before or after the European parliament elections, but “what matters now is moving forward. We need to set a goal, lay the foundations of a CAP that reassures people.” Germany’s agriculture minister, Cem Özdemir, said the EU needed to ensure farmers could make a fair living if they opted for biodiversity and environmental measures. He said the average farmer “spends a quarter of their time at their desks” because of the EU’s “bureaucracy monster”. David Clarinval, the Belgian agriculture minister, said farmers’ complaints had been “clearly heard” but urged them to refrain from violence, while the Irish agriculture minister, Charlie McConalogue said the priority must be to slash red tape. View image in fullscreen A farmer spraying manure at riot police in Brussels on Monday. Photograph: Harry Nakos/AP The EU should ensure that policies were “straightforward, that they’re proportionate and they’re as simple as possible for farmers to implement”, he said, underlining that “we do respect the massively important work that farmers carry out every day in terms of producing food”. The EU has already rowed back on several parts of its flagship green deal plan in an effort to appease farmers, scrapping references to farming emissions from its 2040 climate roadmap, withdrawing a law to cut pesticide use and delaying a target for farmers to leave some land fallow to improve biodiversity. The bloc has also introduced safeguards to stop Ukrainian imports flooding the market under a tariff-free scheme introduced after Russia’s 2022 invasion. View image in fullscreen Riot police out in force at an agricultural show in France on Saturday where the president, Emmanuel Macron, was heckled. Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images The protest was farmers’ second in Brussels in recent weeks. “We are getting ignored,” said Marieke Van De Vivere, a farmer from Belgium’s Ghent region. She said ministers should “be reasonable to us, come with us on a day to work on the field, or with the horses or with the animals, to see that it is not very easy … because of the rules they put on us”. Morgan Ody, from La Via Campesina small farmers’ organisation, said that for most farmers it was “about income. It’s about the fact that we are poor, and that we want to make a decent living,” Ody said. She called on the EU to set up minimum support prices and exit free trade agreements that enable the import of cheaper foreign produce. “We are not against climate policies. But we know that in order to do the transition, we need higher prices for products because it costs more to produce in an ecological way,” she said. View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers protested in Madrid on Monday. Photograph: JJ Guillen/EPA Farmers also protested on Monday in Madrid, blowing whistles, ringing cowbells and beating drums as they demanded that the EU cut red tape and drop some of the CAP. “The new CAP is ruining our lives,” said Juan Pedro Laguna, 46. Roberto Rodriguez, who grows cereal and beetroots in the central province of Avila, said it was “impossible to stand these rules, they want us to work on the field during the day and deal with paperwork at night – we’re sick of the bureaucracy”. Polish farmers protesting against EU regulations and cheap food imports from Ukraine blocked a motorway at a busy border crossing with Germany on Monday and plan to protest in the Polish capital, Warsaw, on Tuesday. View image in fullscreen Polish farmers blocked a busy motorway crossing at the border with Germany on Monday. Photograph: John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images Adrian Wawrzyniak, a spokesperson for the Solidarity farmers’ union, said that as far as he knew “there are also German farmers on the German side – the crossing is blocked from both sides. This is a show of joint solidarity.” Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Monday that farmers’ problems needed fixing at an EU level. “Poland is the first EU country [on the border with Ukraine], but in fact it is a problem of the EU as a whole, of EU agriculture as a whole, and it should be considered in this context,” he told a press conference. Explore more on these topics Farming European Union Europe Belgium Germany Poland France news Share Reuse this content 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video This article is more than 1 year old Farmers clash with riot police in Brussels as EU agriculture leaders meet This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers clash with riot police in Brussels as EU agriculture leaders meet This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers clash with riot police in Brussels as EU agriculture leaders meet This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Belgian capital blocked by 900 tractors amid protests throughout bloc demanding policy changes Belgian capital blocked by 900 tractors amid protests throughout bloc demanding policy changes Belgian capital blocked by 900 tractors amid protests throughout bloc demanding policy changes Farmers have clashed violently with police in the European quarter of Brussels, spraying officers with liquid manure and setting fire to mounds of tyres, while the EU’s agriculture ministers met to discuss the crisis in their sector. As farmers also protested in Madrid and on the Polish-German border, at least 900 tractors jammed streets in the centre of the Belgian capital, police said, with protesters throwing bottles and eggs and setting off fireworks while riot police fired water cannon. Farmers from Spain, Portugal and Italy joined their Belgian counterparts for the latest show of force by a months-long, Europe-wide movement demanding action on high costs, low product prices, cheap non-EU imports and strict EU environmental rules. View image in fullscreen Farmers blocked the streets of central Brussels by bringing at least 900 tractors into the city. Photograph: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images The rolling protests, which on Saturday led to the French president, Emmanuel Macron, being heckled by furious farmers at the Paris agricultural fair , have unnerved leaders before European elections in June that are likely to produce major gains for far-right populist parties. Ministers were meeting to debate European Commission proposals to ease the pressure on farmers, including simplifying the bloc’s common agricultural policy (CAP) by reducing farm inspections and exempting small farms from some green rules. “We need something practical, something operational,” said the French agriculture minister, Marc Fesneau, adding that while there was room for “adjustments within the current rules,” meeting some demands “would require changing the legislation”. View image in fullscreen Some protesters in Brussels threw bottles and eggs at riot police, who responded by firing water cannon. Photograph: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images Fesneau said it did not matter whether the changes were made before or after the European parliament elections, but “what matters now is moving forward. We need to set a goal, lay the foundations of a CAP that reassures people.” Germany’s agriculture minister, Cem Özdemir, said the EU needed to ensure farmers could make a fair living if they opted for biodiversity and environmental measures. He said the average farmer “spends a quarter of their time at their desks” because of the EU’s “bureaucracy monster”. David Clarinval, the Belgian agriculture minister, said farmers’ complaints had been “clearly heard” but urged them to refrain from violence, while the Irish agriculture minister, Charlie McConalogue said the priority must be to slash red tape. View image in fullscreen A farmer spraying manure at riot police in Brussels on Monday. Photograph: Harry Nakos/AP The EU should ensure that policies were “straightforward, that they’re proportionate and they’re as simple as possible for farmers to implement”, he said, underlining that “we do respect the massively important work that farmers carry out every day in terms of producing food”. The EU has already rowed back on several parts of its flagship green deal plan in an effort to appease farmers, scrapping references to farming emissions from its 2040 climate roadmap, withdrawing a law to cut pesticide use and delaying a target for farmers to leave some land fallow to improve biodiversity. The bloc has also introduced safeguards to stop Ukrainian imports flooding the market under a tariff-free scheme introduced after Russia’s 2022 invasion. View image in fullscreen Riot police out in force at an agricultural show in France on Saturday where the president, Emmanuel Macron, was heckled. Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images The protest was farmers’ second in Brussels in recent weeks. “We are getting ignored,” said Marieke Van De Vivere, a farmer from Belgium’s Ghent region. She said ministers should “be reasonable to us, come with us on a day to work on the field, or with the horses or with the animals, to see that it is not very easy … because of the rules they put on us”. Morgan Ody, from La Via Campesina small farmers’ organisation, said that for most farmers it was “about income. It’s about the fact that we are poor, and that we want to make a decent living,” Ody said. She called on the EU to set up minimum support prices and exit free trade agreements that enable the import of cheaper foreign produce. “We are not against climate policies. But we know that in order to do the transition, we need higher prices for products because it costs more to produce in an ecological way,” she said. View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers protested in Madrid on Monday. Photograph: JJ Guillen/EPA Farmers also protested on Monday in Madrid, blowing whistles, ringing cowbells and beating drums as they demanded that the EU cut red tape and drop some of the CAP. “The new CAP is ruining our lives,” said Juan Pedro Laguna, 46. Roberto Rodriguez, who grows cereal and beetroots in the central province of Avila, said it was “impossible to stand these rules, they want us to work on the field during the day and deal with paperwork at night – we’re sick of the bureaucracy”. Polish farmers protesting against EU regulations and cheap food imports from Ukraine blocked a motorway at a busy border crossing with Germany on Monday and plan to protest in the Polish capital, Warsaw, on Tuesday. View image in fullscreen Polish farmers blocked a busy motorway crossing at the border with Germany on Monday. Photograph: John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images Adrian Wawrzyniak, a spokesperson for the Solidarity farmers’ union, said that as far as he knew “there are also German farmers on the German side – the crossing is blocked from both sides. This is a show of joint solidarity.” Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Monday that farmers’ problems needed fixing at an EU level. “Poland is the first EU country [on the border with Ukraine], but in fact it is a problem of the EU as a whole, of EU agriculture as a whole, and it should be considered in this context,” he told a press conference. Explore more on these topics Farming European Union Europe Belgium Germany Poland France news Share Reuse this content Farmers have clashed violently with police in the European quarter of Brussels, spraying officers with liquid manure and setting fire to mounds of tyres, while the EU’s agriculture ministers met to discuss the crisis in their sector. As farmers also protested in Madrid and on the Polish-German border, at least 900 tractors jammed streets in the centre of the Belgian capital, police said, with protesters throwing bottles and eggs and setting off fireworks while riot police fired water cannon. Farmers from Spain, Portugal and Italy joined their Belgian counterparts for the latest show of force by a months-long, Europe-wide movement demanding action on high costs, low product prices, cheap non-EU imports and strict EU environmental rules. View image in fullscreen Farmers blocked the streets of central Brussels by bringing at least 900 tractors into the city. Photograph: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images The rolling protests, which on Saturday led to the French president, Emmanuel Macron, being heckled by furious farmers at the Paris agricultural fair , have unnerved leaders before European elections in June that are likely to produce major gains for far-right populist parties. Ministers were meeting to debate European Commission proposals to ease the pressure on farmers, including simplifying the bloc’s common agricultural policy (CAP) by reducing farm inspections and exempting small farms from some green rules. “We need something practical, something operational,” said the French agriculture minister, Marc Fesneau, adding that while there was room for “adjustments within the current rules,” meeting some demands “would require changing the legislation”. View image in fullscreen Some protesters in Brussels threw bottles and eggs at riot police, who responded by firing water cannon. Photograph: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images Fesneau said it did not matter whether the changes were made before or after the European parliament elections, but “what matters now is moving forward. We need to set a goal, lay the foundations of a CAP that reassures people.” Germany’s agriculture minister, Cem Özdemir, said the EU needed to ensure farmers could make a fair living if they opted for biodiversity and environmental measures. He said the average farmer “spends a quarter of their time at their desks” because of the EU’s “bureaucracy monster”. David Clarinval, the Belgian agriculture minister, said farmers’ complaints had been “clearly heard” but urged them to refrain from violence, while the Irish agriculture minister, Charlie McConalogue said the priority must be to slash red tape. View image in fullscreen A farmer spraying manure at riot police in Brussels on Monday. Photograph: Harry Nakos/AP The EU should ensure that policies were “straightforward, that they’re proportionate and they’re as simple as possible for farmers to implement”, he said, underlining that “we do respect the massively important work that farmers carry out every day in terms of producing food”. The EU has already rowed back on several parts of its flagship green deal plan in an effort to appease farmers, scrapping references to farming emissions from its 2040 climate roadmap, withdrawing a law to cut pesticide use and delaying a target for farmers to leave some land fallow to improve biodiversity. The bloc has also introduced safeguards to stop Ukrainian imports flooding the market under a tariff-free scheme introduced after Russia’s 2022 invasion. View image in fullscreen Riot police out in force at an agricultural show in France on Saturday where the president, Emmanuel Macron, was heckled. Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images The protest was farmers’ second in Brussels in recent weeks. “We are getting ignored,” said Marieke Van De Vivere, a farmer from Belgium’s Ghent region. She said ministers should “be reasonable to us, come with us on a day to work on the field, or with the horses or with the animals, to see that it is not very easy … because of the rules they put on us”. Morgan Ody, from La Via Campesina small farmers’ organisation, said that for most farmers it was “about income. It’s about the fact that we are poor, and that we want to make a decent living,” Ody said. She called on the EU to set up minimum support prices and exit free trade agreements that enable the import of cheaper foreign produce. “We are not against climate policies. But we know that in order to do the transition, we need higher prices for products because it costs more to produce in an ecological way,” she said. View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers protested in Madrid on Monday. Photograph: JJ Guillen/EPA Farmers also protested on Monday in Madrid, blowing whistles, ringing cowbells and beating drums as they demanded that the EU cut red tape and drop some of the CAP. “The new CAP is ruining our lives,” said Juan Pedro Laguna, 46. Roberto Rodriguez, who grows cereal and beetroots in the central province of Avila, said it was “impossible to stand these rules, they want us to work on the field during the day and deal with paperwork at night – we’re sick of the bureaucracy”. Polish farmers protesting against EU regulations and cheap food imports from Ukraine blocked a motorway at a busy border crossing with Germany on Monday and plan to protest in the Polish capital, Warsaw, on Tuesday. View image in fullscreen Polish farmers blocked a busy motorway crossing at the border with Germany on Monday. Photograph: John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images Adrian Wawrzyniak, a spokesperson for the Solidarity farmers’ union, said that as far as he knew “there are also German farmers on the German side – the crossing is blocked from both sides. This is a show of joint solidarity.” Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Monday that farmers’ problems needed fixing at an EU level. “Poland is the first EU country [on the border with Ukraine], but in fact it is a problem of the EU as a whole, of EU agriculture as a whole, and it should be considered in this context,” he told a press conference. Explore more on these topics Farming European Union Europe Belgium Germany Poland France news Share Reuse this content Farmers have clashed violently with police in the European quarter of Brussels, spraying officers with liquid manure and setting fire to mounds of tyres, while the EU’s agriculture ministers met to discuss the crisis in their sector. As farmers also protested in Madrid and on the Polish-German border, at least 900 tractors jammed streets in the centre of the Belgian capital, police said, with protesters throwing bottles and eggs and setting off fireworks while riot police fired water cannon. Farmers from Spain, Portugal and Italy joined their Belgian counterparts for the latest show of force by a months-long, Europe-wide movement demanding action on high costs, low product prices, cheap non-EU imports and strict EU environmental rules. View image in fullscreen Farmers blocked the streets of central Brussels by bringing at least 900 tractors into the city. Photograph: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images The rolling protests, which on Saturday led to the French president, Emmanuel Macron, being heckled by furious farmers at the Paris agricultural fair , have unnerved leaders before European elections in June that are likely to produce major gains for far-right populist parties. Ministers were meeting to debate European Commission proposals to ease the pressure on farmers, including simplifying the bloc’s common agricultural policy (CAP) by reducing farm inspections and exempting small farms from some green rules. “We need something practical, something operational,” said the French agriculture minister, Marc Fesneau, adding that while there was room for “adjustments within the current rules,” meeting some demands “would require changing the legislation”. View image in fullscreen Some protesters in Brussels threw bottles and eggs at riot police, who responded by firing water cannon. Photograph: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images Fesneau said it did not matter whether the changes were made before or after the European parliament elections, but “what matters now is moving forward. We need to set a goal, lay the foundations of a CAP that reassures people.” Germany’s agriculture minister, Cem Özdemir, said the EU needed to ensure farmers could make a fair living if they opted for biodiversity and environmental measures. He said the average farmer “spends a quarter of their time at their desks” because of the EU’s “bureaucracy monster”. David Clarinval, the Belgian agriculture minister, said farmers’ complaints had been “clearly heard” but urged them to refrain from violence, while the Irish agriculture minister, Charlie McConalogue said the priority must be to slash red tape. View image in fullscreen A farmer spraying manure at riot police in Brussels on Monday. Photograph: Harry Nakos/AP The EU should ensure that policies were “straightforward, that they’re proportionate and they’re as simple as possible for farmers to implement”, he said, underlining that “we do respect the massively important work that farmers carry out every day in terms of producing food”. The EU has already rowed back on several parts of its flagship green deal plan in an effort to appease farmers, scrapping references to farming emissions from its 2040 climate roadmap, withdrawing a law to cut pesticide use and delaying a target for farmers to leave some land fallow to improve biodiversity. The bloc has also introduced safeguards to stop Ukrainian imports flooding the market under a tariff-free scheme introduced after Russia’s 2022 invasion. View image in fullscreen Riot police out in force at an agricultural show in France on Saturday where the president, Emmanuel Macron, was heckled. Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images The protest was farmers’ second in Brussels in recent weeks. “We are getting ignored,” said Marieke Van De Vivere, a farmer from Belgium’s Ghent region. She said ministers should “be reasonable to us, come with us on a day to work on the field, or with the horses or with the animals, to see that it is not very easy … because of the rules they put on us”. Morgan Ody, from La Via Campesina small farmers’ organisation, said that for most farmers it was “about income. It’s about the fact that we are poor, and that we want to make a decent living,” Ody said. She called on the EU to set up minimum support prices and exit free trade agreements that enable the import of cheaper foreign produce. “We are not against climate policies. But we know that in order to do the transition, we need higher prices for products because it costs more to produce in an ecological way,” she said. View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers protested in Madrid on Monday. Photograph: JJ Guillen/EPA Farmers also protested on Monday in Madrid, blowing whistles, ringing cowbells and beating drums as they demanded that the EU cut red tape and drop some of the CAP. “The new CAP is ruining our lives,” said Juan Pedro Laguna, 46. Roberto Rodriguez, who grows cereal and beetroots in the central province of Avila, said it was “impossible to stand these rules, they want us to work on the field during the day and deal with paperwork at night – we’re sick of the bureaucracy”. Polish farmers protesting against EU regulations and cheap food imports from Ukraine blocked a motorway at a busy border crossing with Germany on Monday and plan to protest in the Polish capital, Warsaw, on Tuesday. View image in fullscreen Polish farmers blocked a busy motorway crossing at the border with Germany on Monday. Photograph: John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images Adrian Wawrzyniak, a spokesperson for the Solidarity farmers’ union, said that as far as he knew “there are also German farmers on the German side – the crossing is blocked from both sides. This is a show of joint solidarity.” Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Monday that farmers’ problems needed fixing at an EU level. “Poland is the first EU country [on the border with Ukraine], but in fact it is a problem of the EU as a whole, of EU agriculture as a whole, and it should be considered in this context,” he told a press conference. Farmers have clashed violently with police in the European quarter of Brussels, spraying officers with liquid manure and setting fire to mounds of tyres, while the EU’s agriculture ministers met to discuss the crisis in their sector. As farmers also protested in Madrid and on the Polish-German border, at least 900 tractors jammed streets in the centre of the Belgian capital, police said, with protesters throwing bottles and eggs and setting off fireworks while riot police fired water cannon. Farmers from Spain, Portugal and Italy joined their Belgian counterparts for the latest show of force by a months-long, Europe-wide movement demanding action on high costs, low product prices, cheap non-EU imports and strict EU environmental rules. View image in fullscreen Farmers blocked the streets of central Brussels by bringing at least 900 tractors into the city. Photograph: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images The rolling protests, which on Saturday led to the French president, Emmanuel Macron, being heckled by furious farmers at the Paris agricultural fair , have unnerved leaders before European elections in June that are likely to produce major gains for far-right populist parties. Ministers were meeting to debate European Commission proposals to ease the pressure on farmers, including simplifying the bloc’s common agricultural policy (CAP) by reducing farm inspections and exempting small farms from some green rules. “We need something practical, something operational,” said the French agriculture minister, Marc Fesneau, adding that while there was room for “adjustments within the current rules,” meeting some demands “would require changing the legislation”. View image in fullscreen Some protesters in Brussels threw bottles and eggs at riot police, who responded by firing water cannon. Photograph: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images Fesneau said it did not matter whether the changes were made before or after the European parliament elections, but “what matters now is moving forward. We need to set a goal, lay the foundations of a CAP that reassures people.” Germany’s agriculture minister, Cem Özdemir, said the EU needed to ensure farmers could make a fair living if they opted for biodiversity and environmental measures. He said the average farmer “spends a quarter of their time at their desks” because of the EU’s “bureaucracy monster”. David Clarinval, the Belgian agriculture minister, said farmers’ complaints had been “clearly heard” but urged them to refrain from violence, while the Irish agriculture minister, Charlie McConalogue said the priority must be to slash red tape. View image in fullscreen A farmer spraying manure at riot police in Brussels on Monday. Photograph: Harry Nakos/AP The EU should ensure that policies were “straightforward, that they’re proportionate and they’re as simple as possible for farmers to implement”, he said, underlining that “we do respect the massively important work that farmers carry out every day in terms of producing food”. The EU has already rowed back on several parts of its flagship green deal plan in an effort to appease farmers, scrapping references to farming emissions from its 2040 climate roadmap, withdrawing a law to cut pesticide use and delaying a target for farmers to leave some land fallow to improve biodiversity. The bloc has also introduced safeguards to stop Ukrainian imports flooding the market under a tariff-free scheme introduced after Russia’s 2022 invasion. View image in fullscreen Riot police out in force at an agricultural show in France on Saturday where the president, Emmanuel Macron, was heckled. Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images The protest was farmers’ second in Brussels in recent weeks. “We are getting ignored,” said Marieke Van De Vivere, a farmer from Belgium’s Ghent region. She said ministers should “be reasonable to us, come with us on a day to work on the field, or with the horses or with the animals, to see that it is not very easy … because of the rules they put on us”. Morgan Ody, from La Via Campesina small farmers’ organisation, said that for most farmers it was “about income. It’s about the fact that we are poor, and that we want to make a decent living,” Ody said. She called on the EU to set up minimum support prices and exit free trade agreements that enable the import of cheaper foreign produce. “We are not against climate policies. But we know that in order to do the transition, we need higher prices for products because it costs more to produce in an ecological way,” she said. View image in fullscreen Spanish farmers protested in Madrid on Monday. Photograph: JJ Guillen/EPA Farmers also protested on Monday in Madrid, blowing whistles, ringing cowbells and beating drums as they demanded that the EU cut red tape and drop some of the CAP. “The new CAP is ruining our lives,” said Juan Pedro Laguna, 46. Roberto Rodriguez, who grows cereal and beetroots in the central province of Avila, said it was “impossible to stand these rules, they want us to work on the field during the day and deal with paperwork at night – we’re sick of the bureaucracy”. Polish farmers protesting against EU regulations and cheap food imports from Ukraine blocked a motorway at a busy border crossing with Germany on Monday and plan to protest in the Polish capital, Warsaw, on Tuesday. View image in fullscreen Polish farmers blocked a busy motorway crossing at the border with Germany on Monday. Photograph: John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images Adrian Wawrzyniak, a spokesperson for the Solidarity farmers’ union, said that as far as he knew “there are also German farmers on the German side – the crossing is blocked from both sides. This is a show of joint solidarity.” Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Monday that farmers’ problems needed fixing at an EU level. “Poland is the first EU country [on the border with Ukraine], but in fact it is a problem of the EU as a whole, of EU agriculture as a whole, and it should be considered in this context,” he told a press conference. Farmers have clashed violently with police in the European quarter of Brussels, spraying officers with liquid manure and setting fire to mounds of tyres, while the EU’s agriculture ministers met to discuss the crisis in their sector. As farmers also protested in Madrid and on the Polish-German border, at least 900 tractors jammed streets in the centre of the Belgian capital, police said, with protesters throwing bottles and eggs and setting off fireworks while riot police fired water cannon. Farmers from Spain, Portugal and Italy joined their Belgian counterparts for the latest show of force by a months-long, Europe-wide movement demanding action on high costs, low product prices, cheap non-EU imports and strict EU environmental rules. The rolling protests, which on Saturday led to the French president, Emmanuel Macron, being heckled by furious farmers at the Paris agricultural fair , have unnerved leaders before European elections in June that are likely to produce major gains for far-right populist parties. Ministers were meeting to debate European Commission proposals to ease the pressure on farmers, including simplifying the bloc’s common agricultural policy (CAP) by reducing farm inspections and exempting small farms from some green rules. “We need something practical, something operational,” said the French agriculture minister, Marc Fesneau, adding that while there was room for “adjustments within the current rules,” meeting some demands “would require changing the legislation”. Fesneau said it did not matter whether the changes were made before or after the European parliament elections, but “what matters now is moving forward. We need to set a goal, lay the foundations of a CAP that reassures people.” Germany’s agriculture minister, Cem Özdemir, said the EU needed to ensure farmers could make a fair living if they opted for biodiversity and environmental measures. He said the average farmer “spends a quarter of their time at their desks” because of the EU’s “bureaucracy monster”. David Clarinval, the Belgian agriculture minister, said farmers’ complaints had been “clearly heard” but urged them to refrain from violence, while the Irish agriculture minister, Charlie McConalogue said the priority must be to slash red tape. The EU should ensure that policies were “straightforward, that they’re proportionate and they’re as simple as possible for farmers to implement”, he said, underlining that “we do respect the massively important work that farmers carry out every day in terms of producing food”. The EU has already rowed back on several parts of its flagship green deal plan in an effort to appease farmers, scrapping references to farming emissions from its 2040 climate roadmap, withdrawing a law to cut pesticide use and delaying a target for farmers to leave some land fallow to improve biodiversity. The bloc has also introduced safeguards to stop Ukrainian imports flooding the market under a tariff-free scheme introduced after Russia’s 2022 invasion. The protest was farmers’ second in Brussels in recent weeks. “We are getting ignored,” said Marieke Van De Vivere, a farmer from Belgium’s Ghent region. She said ministers should “be reasonable to us, come with us on a day to work on the field, or with the horses or with the animals, to see that it is not very easy … because of the rules they put on us”. Morgan Ody, from La Via Campesina small farmers’ organisation, said that for most farmers it was “about income. It’s about the fact that we are poor, and that we want to make a decent living,” Ody said. She called on the EU to set up minimum support prices and exit free trade agreements that enable the import of cheaper foreign produce. “We are not against climate policies. But we know that in order to do the transition, we need higher prices for products because it costs more to produce in an ecological way,” she said. Farmers also protested on Monday in Madrid, blowing whistles, ringing cowbells and beating drums as they demanded that the EU cut red tape and drop some of the CAP. “The new CAP is ruining our lives,” said Juan Pedro Laguna, 46. Roberto Rodriguez, who grows cereal and beetroots in the central province of Avila, said it was “impossible to stand these rules, they want us to work on the field during the day and deal with paperwork at night – we’re sick of the bureaucracy”. Polish farmers protesting against EU regulations and cheap food imports from Ukraine blocked a motorway at a busy border crossing with Germany on Monday and plan to protest in the Polish capital, Warsaw, on Tuesday. Adrian Wawrzyniak, a spokesperson for the Solidarity farmers’ union, said that as far as he knew “there are also German farmers on the German side – the crossing is blocked from both sides. This is a show of joint solidarity.” Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Monday that farmers’ problems needed fixing at an EU level. “Poland is the first EU country [on the border with Ukraine], but in fact it is a problem of the EU as a whole, of EU agriculture as a whole, and it should be considered in this context,” he told a press conference. Explore more on these topics Farming European Union Europe Belgium Germany Poland France news Share Reuse this content Farming European Union Europe Belgium Germany Poland France news |
Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video
1:02 This article is more than 1 year old Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video This article is more than 1 year old Hundreds of tractors arrived in Brussels Monday and more are on their way as European Union agriculture ministers meet to address farmers' concerns. It follows weeks of protests by farmers across the EU. Farmers are demanding the reversal of progressive measures to counter climate change and protect biodiversity, arguing that the rules are harming their livelihoods and strangling them with red tape Explore more on these topics Farming Europe European Union Protest 1:02 This article is more than 1 year old Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video This article is more than 1 year old Hundreds of tractors arrived in Brussels Monday and more are on their way as European Union agriculture ministers meet to address farmers' concerns. It follows weeks of protests by farmers across the EU. Farmers are demanding the reversal of progressive measures to counter climate change and protect biodiversity, arguing that the rules are harming their livelihoods and strangling them with red tape Explore more on these topics Farming Europe European Union Protest This article is more than 1 year old Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Hundreds of tractors arrived in Brussels Monday and more are on their way as European Union agriculture ministers meet to address farmers' concerns. It follows weeks of protests by farmers across the EU. Farmers are demanding the reversal of progressive measures to counter climate change and protect biodiversity, arguing that the rules are harming their livelihoods and strangling them with red tape Hundreds of tractors arrived in Brussels Monday and more are on their way as European Union agriculture ministers meet to address farmers' concerns. It follows weeks of protests by farmers across the EU. Farmers are demanding the reversal of progressive measures to counter climate change and protect biodiversity, arguing that the rules are harming their livelihoods and strangling them with red tape Hundreds of tractors arrived in Brussels Monday and more are on their way as European Union agriculture ministers meet to address farmers' concerns. It follows weeks of protests by farmers across the EU. Farmers are demanding the reversal of progressive measures to counter climate change and protect biodiversity, arguing that the rules are harming their livelihoods and strangling them with red tape Explore more on these topics Farming Europe European Union Protest Explore more on these topics Farming Europe European Union Protest Explore more on these topics Farming Europe European Union Protest Farming Europe European Union Protest |
Were two Muslim women in east London run over because they were wearing hijabs?
Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy View image in fullscreen Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Were two Muslim women in east London run over because they were wearing hijabs? This article is more than 1 year old Misbah Sadique and her friend Kulsum were hit by a car they say was accelerating at them but police did not regard incident as a potential hate crime despite rising Islamophobia T he driver was said to have slowed down to let Misbah Sadique, 37, and her friend Kulsum, cross the road. They were close to home in Waltham Forest and felt safe in a part of east London that they knew well. But, as they stepped out, the car in front of them suddenly, inexplicably, accelerated, one of the women later alleged. It is said that Kulsum was thrown to the ground by the force of the impact and that Misbah was dragged under the vehicle. She claims she was lucky to escape with breaks to her right ankle and foot, ribs and right arm, on top of extensive bruising and abrasions. Three weeks later, she remains in hospital, traumatised and facing a long road to recovery. The driver, who did not leave the scene, gave a statement by the side of the road and the police have categorised what happened as a road traffic incident. No arrests were made. But Misbah and Kulsum had both been wearing hijabs. Misbah, who has given a statement to the police in recent days, is calling, with the support of her family and the charity, The Islamophobia Response Unit , for the incident on 1 February to be further investigated as a potential hate crime. “The immense emotional distress and trauma [of the incident] was made worse as we felt the people who were supposed to protect us and make us feel safe were disregarding their duty of care to us,” said Nazia Tayyib, a cousin of Misbah’s, speaking on her behalf. The Met said officers did open a hate crime investigation in response to concerns raised with them. “However, our investigation – including viewing of CCTV – leads us to believe that the women were not in any way deliberately targeted,” said Ch Supt Simon Crick, who is in charge of policing Waltham Forest. “This was an unfortunate road traffic collision.” The police said they had asked specialists to review the case as well but that they had come to the same conclusion. But that Misbah should consider someone capable of running her down purely due to her faith might be in itself be regarded as a damning insight into modern Britain. Anti-racism campaigners within the Muslim community say people are feeling vulnerable and faith in the authorities is at a dangerously low ebb. Should the outlook of these two terrified young women really come as a surprise, it is asked? The Tell Mama charity has documented 2,010 Islamophobic incidents in the UK since 7 October, when Hamas’s murderous attack triggered the war with Israel. This compares with 600 such incidents in the same period in the previous year. Muslim women were targeted in two out of every three incidents recorded. View image in fullscreen Shaista Gohir. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian Shaista Gohir, leader of the Muslim Women’s Network, said the impact of Islamophobia could be particularly acute for women. “Because of the negativity around Islam and faith, there’s this perception amongst the public, which is a narrative that’s been kind of reinforced by politicians and also media as well, that Muslim women are kind of oppressed and forced to cover up,” she said. “It seems it’s actually OK to become acceptable now, to say very negative things about Muslims, even if you’re a public figure … When it comes to Islamophobia, there is a tolerance to it, that there is no such thing as zero tolerance. That doesn’t apply to us.” Indeed, the evidence of a sudden rise in incidents only adds to the huge body of work over the years that has documented a creeping acceptance in the UK of hostility towards people of Muslim faith. As early as 2011, the then chairman of the Conservative party, Sayeeda Warsi, the first Muslim woman to attend cabinet, had warned that prejudice against Muslims had become normalised, “passing the dinner table test”. The former deputy chairman of the Conservative party Lee Anderson lost the Tory whip this week, not for the substance of his comments but for failing to apologise for “wrongly” claiming that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim leader of the capital, was under the power of Islamists. Sunak, his media allies – maybe even Lee Anderson – know Sadiq Khan is no Islamist. This is tactical racism | Archie Bland Read more With cabinet ministers refusing to describe his comments as racist, Anderson doubled down on his claims on Monday , telling GB News “when you think you are right, you should never apologise because to do so would be a sign of weakness”. The war between Israel and Gaza is said by those experiencing the abuse to have only further legitimised, in the eyes of some, the espousing of long-held views about the Muslim community. On Monday, a coalition of civil society organisations, including Islamic Relief UK, the Fawcett Society and Hope Not Hate, known as the Anti-Islamophobia Working Group, wrote to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, to express their alarm at the lack of response to the claim from Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, in the Daily Telegraph that the “Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge now”. “As prime minister it is your duty to safeguard all communities, no matter their race or religion”, they demanded. Majid Iqbal, chief executive of the the Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU), which seeks to help victims bring cases to the police, said they had recorded a 365% increase in cases crossing their desk since October with “lots of incidents of Islamophobia on public transport [directed at] individuals who’ve attended protests, just generally in the street, and in their everyday life”. On Monday morning, the charity received an email typical of its sort. “I’m sick and tired of you lot moaning about racism when YOU are the problem,” wrote ‘Marie Conway’. “This war has NOTHING to do with the UK, OUR country, you are racist against Jewish people who’ve lived here peacefully until you came here. You are NOT welcome or wanted here. We will pay for your airfare home. So instead of being cowards, you can go and fight for your beliefs. If not shut up. As the true English people like myself don’t care about you.” Mohammed Kozbar, general secretary of the Finsbury Park mosque, where worshippers were subject to a terrorist attack in 2017, which killed one man and left 12 injured, said he had reported a number of incidents to the police since October. He said: “We’ve seen people standing outside the mosque shouting in an Islamophobic and racist way, attacking the community. We’ve seen offensive emails as well attacking the community, talking about the faith itself, the prophet, the Qur’an. So it’s about dehumanising the Muslim community. “We hope that the police get to the bottom of it but from our experience, to be honest, most of the cases, I’m talking about probably 99% of the cases, nothing has been done about it and that’s an issue which the police needs to deal with.” Kamran Hussain, chief executive of the British Muslim Heritage Centre in Manchester, said he was concerned by the rhetoric used by some media outlets and by prominent politicians. His organisation is now training up staff to provide a “hate crime” reporting service. Mohammed Saeed, chair of trustees at the Green Lane mosque, in Birmingham, the country’s largest, said they were also in regular contact with West Midlands police but that leadership from Downing Street was now required. “We continuously receive Islamophobic hate,” Saeed said. “Support is needed from our government in these challenging times.” Explore more on these topics Islamophobia London Hate crime Israel-Gaza war features Share Reuse this content Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy View image in fullscreen Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Were two Muslim women in east London run over because they were wearing hijabs? This article is more than 1 year old Misbah Sadique and her friend Kulsum were hit by a car they say was accelerating at them but police did not regard incident as a potential hate crime despite rising Islamophobia T he driver was said to have slowed down to let Misbah Sadique, 37, and her friend Kulsum, cross the road. They were close to home in Waltham Forest and felt safe in a part of east London that they knew well. But, as they stepped out, the car in front of them suddenly, inexplicably, accelerated, one of the women later alleged. It is said that Kulsum was thrown to the ground by the force of the impact and that Misbah was dragged under the vehicle. She claims she was lucky to escape with breaks to her right ankle and foot, ribs and right arm, on top of extensive bruising and abrasions. Three weeks later, she remains in hospital, traumatised and facing a long road to recovery. The driver, who did not leave the scene, gave a statement by the side of the road and the police have categorised what happened as a road traffic incident. No arrests were made. But Misbah and Kulsum had both been wearing hijabs. Misbah, who has given a statement to the police in recent days, is calling, with the support of her family and the charity, The Islamophobia Response Unit , for the incident on 1 February to be further investigated as a potential hate crime. “The immense emotional distress and trauma [of the incident] was made worse as we felt the people who were supposed to protect us and make us feel safe were disregarding their duty of care to us,” said Nazia Tayyib, a cousin of Misbah’s, speaking on her behalf. The Met said officers did open a hate crime investigation in response to concerns raised with them. “However, our investigation – including viewing of CCTV – leads us to believe that the women were not in any way deliberately targeted,” said Ch Supt Simon Crick, who is in charge of policing Waltham Forest. “This was an unfortunate road traffic collision.” The police said they had asked specialists to review the case as well but that they had come to the same conclusion. But that Misbah should consider someone capable of running her down purely due to her faith might be in itself be regarded as a damning insight into modern Britain. Anti-racism campaigners within the Muslim community say people are feeling vulnerable and faith in the authorities is at a dangerously low ebb. Should the outlook of these two terrified young women really come as a surprise, it is asked? The Tell Mama charity has documented 2,010 Islamophobic incidents in the UK since 7 October, when Hamas’s murderous attack triggered the war with Israel. This compares with 600 such incidents in the same period in the previous year. Muslim women were targeted in two out of every three incidents recorded. View image in fullscreen Shaista Gohir. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian Shaista Gohir, leader of the Muslim Women’s Network, said the impact of Islamophobia could be particularly acute for women. “Because of the negativity around Islam and faith, there’s this perception amongst the public, which is a narrative that’s been kind of reinforced by politicians and also media as well, that Muslim women are kind of oppressed and forced to cover up,” she said. “It seems it’s actually OK to become acceptable now, to say very negative things about Muslims, even if you’re a public figure … When it comes to Islamophobia, there is a tolerance to it, that there is no such thing as zero tolerance. That doesn’t apply to us.” Indeed, the evidence of a sudden rise in incidents only adds to the huge body of work over the years that has documented a creeping acceptance in the UK of hostility towards people of Muslim faith. As early as 2011, the then chairman of the Conservative party, Sayeeda Warsi, the first Muslim woman to attend cabinet, had warned that prejudice against Muslims had become normalised, “passing the dinner table test”. The former deputy chairman of the Conservative party Lee Anderson lost the Tory whip this week, not for the substance of his comments but for failing to apologise for “wrongly” claiming that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim leader of the capital, was under the power of Islamists. Sunak, his media allies – maybe even Lee Anderson – know Sadiq Khan is no Islamist. This is tactical racism | Archie Bland Read more With cabinet ministers refusing to describe his comments as racist, Anderson doubled down on his claims on Monday , telling GB News “when you think you are right, you should never apologise because to do so would be a sign of weakness”. The war between Israel and Gaza is said by those experiencing the abuse to have only further legitimised, in the eyes of some, the espousing of long-held views about the Muslim community. On Monday, a coalition of civil society organisations, including Islamic Relief UK, the Fawcett Society and Hope Not Hate, known as the Anti-Islamophobia Working Group, wrote to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, to express their alarm at the lack of response to the claim from Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, in the Daily Telegraph that the “Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge now”. “As prime minister it is your duty to safeguard all communities, no matter their race or religion”, they demanded. Majid Iqbal, chief executive of the the Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU), which seeks to help victims bring cases to the police, said they had recorded a 365% increase in cases crossing their desk since October with “lots of incidents of Islamophobia on public transport [directed at] individuals who’ve attended protests, just generally in the street, and in their everyday life”. On Monday morning, the charity received an email typical of its sort. “I’m sick and tired of you lot moaning about racism when YOU are the problem,” wrote ‘Marie Conway’. “This war has NOTHING to do with the UK, OUR country, you are racist against Jewish people who’ve lived here peacefully until you came here. You are NOT welcome or wanted here. We will pay for your airfare home. So instead of being cowards, you can go and fight for your beliefs. If not shut up. As the true English people like myself don’t care about you.” Mohammed Kozbar, general secretary of the Finsbury Park mosque, where worshippers were subject to a terrorist attack in 2017, which killed one man and left 12 injured, said he had reported a number of incidents to the police since October. He said: “We’ve seen people standing outside the mosque shouting in an Islamophobic and racist way, attacking the community. We’ve seen offensive emails as well attacking the community, talking about the faith itself, the prophet, the Qur’an. So it’s about dehumanising the Muslim community. “We hope that the police get to the bottom of it but from our experience, to be honest, most of the cases, I’m talking about probably 99% of the cases, nothing has been done about it and that’s an issue which the police needs to deal with.” Kamran Hussain, chief executive of the British Muslim Heritage Centre in Manchester, said he was concerned by the rhetoric used by some media outlets and by prominent politicians. His organisation is now training up staff to provide a “hate crime” reporting service. Mohammed Saeed, chair of trustees at the Green Lane mosque, in Birmingham, the country’s largest, said they were also in regular contact with West Midlands police but that leadership from Downing Street was now required. “We continuously receive Islamophobic hate,” Saeed said. “Support is needed from our government in these challenging times.” Explore more on these topics Islamophobia London Hate crime Israel-Gaza war features Share Reuse this content Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy View image in fullscreen Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy View image in fullscreen Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy View image in fullscreen Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy View image in fullscreen Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy Two out of three incidences of Islamophobia are aimed at Muslim women. Photograph: MBI/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Were two Muslim women in east London run over because they were wearing hijabs? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Were two Muslim women in east London run over because they were wearing hijabs? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Were two Muslim women in east London run over because they were wearing hijabs? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Misbah Sadique and her friend Kulsum were hit by a car they say was accelerating at them but police did not regard incident as a potential hate crime despite rising Islamophobia Misbah Sadique and her friend Kulsum were hit by a car they say was accelerating at them but police did not regard incident as a potential hate crime despite rising Islamophobia Misbah Sadique and her friend Kulsum were hit by a car they say was accelerating at them but police did not regard incident as a potential hate crime despite rising Islamophobia T he driver was said to have slowed down to let Misbah Sadique, 37, and her friend Kulsum, cross the road. They were close to home in Waltham Forest and felt safe in a part of east London that they knew well. But, as they stepped out, the car in front of them suddenly, inexplicably, accelerated, one of the women later alleged. It is said that Kulsum was thrown to the ground by the force of the impact and that Misbah was dragged under the vehicle. She claims she was lucky to escape with breaks to her right ankle and foot, ribs and right arm, on top of extensive bruising and abrasions. Three weeks later, she remains in hospital, traumatised and facing a long road to recovery. The driver, who did not leave the scene, gave a statement by the side of the road and the police have categorised what happened as a road traffic incident. No arrests were made. But Misbah and Kulsum had both been wearing hijabs. Misbah, who has given a statement to the police in recent days, is calling, with the support of her family and the charity, The Islamophobia Response Unit , for the incident on 1 February to be further investigated as a potential hate crime. “The immense emotional distress and trauma [of the incident] was made worse as we felt the people who were supposed to protect us and make us feel safe were disregarding their duty of care to us,” said Nazia Tayyib, a cousin of Misbah’s, speaking on her behalf. The Met said officers did open a hate crime investigation in response to concerns raised with them. “However, our investigation – including viewing of CCTV – leads us to believe that the women were not in any way deliberately targeted,” said Ch Supt Simon Crick, who is in charge of policing Waltham Forest. “This was an unfortunate road traffic collision.” The police said they had asked specialists to review the case as well but that they had come to the same conclusion. But that Misbah should consider someone capable of running her down purely due to her faith might be in itself be regarded as a damning insight into modern Britain. Anti-racism campaigners within the Muslim community say people are feeling vulnerable and faith in the authorities is at a dangerously low ebb. Should the outlook of these two terrified young women really come as a surprise, it is asked? The Tell Mama charity has documented 2,010 Islamophobic incidents in the UK since 7 October, when Hamas’s murderous attack triggered the war with Israel. This compares with 600 such incidents in the same period in the previous year. Muslim women were targeted in two out of every three incidents recorded. View image in fullscreen Shaista Gohir. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian Shaista Gohir, leader of the Muslim Women’s Network, said the impact of Islamophobia could be particularly acute for women. “Because of the negativity around Islam and faith, there’s this perception amongst the public, which is a narrative that’s been kind of reinforced by politicians and also media as well, that Muslim women are kind of oppressed and forced to cover up,” she said. “It seems it’s actually OK to become acceptable now, to say very negative things about Muslims, even if you’re a public figure … When it comes to Islamophobia, there is a tolerance to it, that there is no such thing as zero tolerance. That doesn’t apply to us.” Indeed, the evidence of a sudden rise in incidents only adds to the huge body of work over the years that has documented a creeping acceptance in the UK of hostility towards people of Muslim faith. As early as 2011, the then chairman of the Conservative party, Sayeeda Warsi, the first Muslim woman to attend cabinet, had warned that prejudice against Muslims had become normalised, “passing the dinner table test”. The former deputy chairman of the Conservative party Lee Anderson lost the Tory whip this week, not for the substance of his comments but for failing to apologise for “wrongly” claiming that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim leader of the capital, was under the power of Islamists. Sunak, his media allies – maybe even Lee Anderson – know Sadiq Khan is no Islamist. This is tactical racism | Archie Bland Read more With cabinet ministers refusing to describe his comments as racist, Anderson doubled down on his claims on Monday , telling GB News “when you think you are right, you should never apologise because to do so would be a sign of weakness”. The war between Israel and Gaza is said by those experiencing the abuse to have only further legitimised, in the eyes of some, the espousing of long-held views about the Muslim community. On Monday, a coalition of civil society organisations, including Islamic Relief UK, the Fawcett Society and Hope Not Hate, known as the Anti-Islamophobia Working Group, wrote to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, to express their alarm at the lack of response to the claim from Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, in the Daily Telegraph that the “Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge now”. “As prime minister it is your duty to safeguard all communities, no matter their race or religion”, they demanded. Majid Iqbal, chief executive of the the Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU), which seeks to help victims bring cases to the police, said they had recorded a 365% increase in cases crossing their desk since October with “lots of incidents of Islamophobia on public transport [directed at] individuals who’ve attended protests, just generally in the street, and in their everyday life”. On Monday morning, the charity received an email typical of its sort. “I’m sick and tired of you lot moaning about racism when YOU are the problem,” wrote ‘Marie Conway’. “This war has NOTHING to do with the UK, OUR country, you are racist against Jewish people who’ve lived here peacefully until you came here. You are NOT welcome or wanted here. We will pay for your airfare home. So instead of being cowards, you can go and fight for your beliefs. If not shut up. As the true English people like myself don’t care about you.” Mohammed Kozbar, general secretary of the Finsbury Park mosque, where worshippers were subject to a terrorist attack in 2017, which killed one man and left 12 injured, said he had reported a number of incidents to the police since October. He said: “We’ve seen people standing outside the mosque shouting in an Islamophobic and racist way, attacking the community. We’ve seen offensive emails as well attacking the community, talking about the faith itself, the prophet, the Qur’an. So it’s about dehumanising the Muslim community. “We hope that the police get to the bottom of it but from our experience, to be honest, most of the cases, I’m talking about probably 99% of the cases, nothing has been done about it and that’s an issue which the police needs to deal with.” Kamran Hussain, chief executive of the British Muslim Heritage Centre in Manchester, said he was concerned by the rhetoric used by some media outlets and by prominent politicians. His organisation is now training up staff to provide a “hate crime” reporting service. Mohammed Saeed, chair of trustees at the Green Lane mosque, in Birmingham, the country’s largest, said they were also in regular contact with West Midlands police but that leadership from Downing Street was now required. “We continuously receive Islamophobic hate,” Saeed said. “Support is needed from our government in these challenging times.” Explore more on these topics Islamophobia London Hate crime Israel-Gaza war features Share Reuse this content T he driver was said to have slowed down to let Misbah Sadique, 37, and her friend Kulsum, cross the road. They were close to home in Waltham Forest and felt safe in a part of east London that they knew well. But, as they stepped out, the car in front of them suddenly, inexplicably, accelerated, one of the women later alleged. It is said that Kulsum was thrown to the ground by the force of the impact and that Misbah was dragged under the vehicle. She claims she was lucky to escape with breaks to her right ankle and foot, ribs and right arm, on top of extensive bruising and abrasions. Three weeks later, she remains in hospital, traumatised and facing a long road to recovery. The driver, who did not leave the scene, gave a statement by the side of the road and the police have categorised what happened as a road traffic incident. No arrests were made. But Misbah and Kulsum had both been wearing hijabs. Misbah, who has given a statement to the police in recent days, is calling, with the support of her family and the charity, The Islamophobia Response Unit , for the incident on 1 February to be further investigated as a potential hate crime. “The immense emotional distress and trauma [of the incident] was made worse as we felt the people who were supposed to protect us and make us feel safe were disregarding their duty of care to us,” said Nazia Tayyib, a cousin of Misbah’s, speaking on her behalf. The Met said officers did open a hate crime investigation in response to concerns raised with them. “However, our investigation – including viewing of CCTV – leads us to believe that the women were not in any way deliberately targeted,” said Ch Supt Simon Crick, who is in charge of policing Waltham Forest. “This was an unfortunate road traffic collision.” The police said they had asked specialists to review the case as well but that they had come to the same conclusion. But that Misbah should consider someone capable of running her down purely due to her faith might be in itself be regarded as a damning insight into modern Britain. Anti-racism campaigners within the Muslim community say people are feeling vulnerable and faith in the authorities is at a dangerously low ebb. Should the outlook of these two terrified young women really come as a surprise, it is asked? The Tell Mama charity has documented 2,010 Islamophobic incidents in the UK since 7 October, when Hamas’s murderous attack triggered the war with Israel. This compares with 600 such incidents in the same period in the previous year. Muslim women were targeted in two out of every three incidents recorded. View image in fullscreen Shaista Gohir. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian Shaista Gohir, leader of the Muslim Women’s Network, said the impact of Islamophobia could be particularly acute for women. “Because of the negativity around Islam and faith, there’s this perception amongst the public, which is a narrative that’s been kind of reinforced by politicians and also media as well, that Muslim women are kind of oppressed and forced to cover up,” she said. “It seems it’s actually OK to become acceptable now, to say very negative things about Muslims, even if you’re a public figure … When it comes to Islamophobia, there is a tolerance to it, that there is no such thing as zero tolerance. That doesn’t apply to us.” Indeed, the evidence of a sudden rise in incidents only adds to the huge body of work over the years that has documented a creeping acceptance in the UK of hostility towards people of Muslim faith. As early as 2011, the then chairman of the Conservative party, Sayeeda Warsi, the first Muslim woman to attend cabinet, had warned that prejudice against Muslims had become normalised, “passing the dinner table test”. The former deputy chairman of the Conservative party Lee Anderson lost the Tory whip this week, not for the substance of his comments but for failing to apologise for “wrongly” claiming that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim leader of the capital, was under the power of Islamists. Sunak, his media allies – maybe even Lee Anderson – know Sadiq Khan is no Islamist. This is tactical racism | Archie Bland Read more With cabinet ministers refusing to describe his comments as racist, Anderson doubled down on his claims on Monday , telling GB News “when you think you are right, you should never apologise because to do so would be a sign of weakness”. The war between Israel and Gaza is said by those experiencing the abuse to have only further legitimised, in the eyes of some, the espousing of long-held views about the Muslim community. On Monday, a coalition of civil society organisations, including Islamic Relief UK, the Fawcett Society and Hope Not Hate, known as the Anti-Islamophobia Working Group, wrote to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, to express their alarm at the lack of response to the claim from Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, in the Daily Telegraph that the “Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge now”. “As prime minister it is your duty to safeguard all communities, no matter their race or religion”, they demanded. Majid Iqbal, chief executive of the the Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU), which seeks to help victims bring cases to the police, said they had recorded a 365% increase in cases crossing their desk since October with “lots of incidents of Islamophobia on public transport [directed at] individuals who’ve attended protests, just generally in the street, and in their everyday life”. On Monday morning, the charity received an email typical of its sort. “I’m sick and tired of you lot moaning about racism when YOU are the problem,” wrote ‘Marie Conway’. “This war has NOTHING to do with the UK, OUR country, you are racist against Jewish people who’ve lived here peacefully until you came here. You are NOT welcome or wanted here. We will pay for your airfare home. So instead of being cowards, you can go and fight for your beliefs. If not shut up. As the true English people like myself don’t care about you.” Mohammed Kozbar, general secretary of the Finsbury Park mosque, where worshippers were subject to a terrorist attack in 2017, which killed one man and left 12 injured, said he had reported a number of incidents to the police since October. He said: “We’ve seen people standing outside the mosque shouting in an Islamophobic and racist way, attacking the community. We’ve seen offensive emails as well attacking the community, talking about the faith itself, the prophet, the Qur’an. So it’s about dehumanising the Muslim community. “We hope that the police get to the bottom of it but from our experience, to be honest, most of the cases, I’m talking about probably 99% of the cases, nothing has been done about it and that’s an issue which the police needs to deal with.” Kamran Hussain, chief executive of the British Muslim Heritage Centre in Manchester, said he was concerned by the rhetoric used by some media outlets and by prominent politicians. His organisation is now training up staff to provide a “hate crime” reporting service. Mohammed Saeed, chair of trustees at the Green Lane mosque, in Birmingham, the country’s largest, said they were also in regular contact with West Midlands police but that leadership from Downing Street was now required. “We continuously receive Islamophobic hate,” Saeed said. “Support is needed from our government in these challenging times.” Explore more on these topics Islamophobia London Hate crime Israel-Gaza war features Share Reuse this content T he driver was said to have slowed down to let Misbah Sadique, 37, and her friend Kulsum, cross the road. They were close to home in Waltham Forest and felt safe in a part of east London that they knew well. But, as they stepped out, the car in front of them suddenly, inexplicably, accelerated, one of the women later alleged. It is said that Kulsum was thrown to the ground by the force of the impact and that Misbah was dragged under the vehicle. She claims she was lucky to escape with breaks to her right ankle and foot, ribs and right arm, on top of extensive bruising and abrasions. Three weeks later, she remains in hospital, traumatised and facing a long road to recovery. The driver, who did not leave the scene, gave a statement by the side of the road and the police have categorised what happened as a road traffic incident. No arrests were made. But Misbah and Kulsum had both been wearing hijabs. Misbah, who has given a statement to the police in recent days, is calling, with the support of her family and the charity, The Islamophobia Response Unit , for the incident on 1 February to be further investigated as a potential hate crime. “The immense emotional distress and trauma [of the incident] was made worse as we felt the people who were supposed to protect us and make us feel safe were disregarding their duty of care to us,” said Nazia Tayyib, a cousin of Misbah’s, speaking on her behalf. The Met said officers did open a hate crime investigation in response to concerns raised with them. “However, our investigation – including viewing of CCTV – leads us to believe that the women were not in any way deliberately targeted,” said Ch Supt Simon Crick, who is in charge of policing Waltham Forest. “This was an unfortunate road traffic collision.” The police said they had asked specialists to review the case as well but that they had come to the same conclusion. But that Misbah should consider someone capable of running her down purely due to her faith might be in itself be regarded as a damning insight into modern Britain. Anti-racism campaigners within the Muslim community say people are feeling vulnerable and faith in the authorities is at a dangerously low ebb. Should the outlook of these two terrified young women really come as a surprise, it is asked? The Tell Mama charity has documented 2,010 Islamophobic incidents in the UK since 7 October, when Hamas’s murderous attack triggered the war with Israel. This compares with 600 such incidents in the same period in the previous year. Muslim women were targeted in two out of every three incidents recorded. View image in fullscreen Shaista Gohir. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian Shaista Gohir, leader of the Muslim Women’s Network, said the impact of Islamophobia could be particularly acute for women. “Because of the negativity around Islam and faith, there’s this perception amongst the public, which is a narrative that’s been kind of reinforced by politicians and also media as well, that Muslim women are kind of oppressed and forced to cover up,” she said. “It seems it’s actually OK to become acceptable now, to say very negative things about Muslims, even if you’re a public figure … When it comes to Islamophobia, there is a tolerance to it, that there is no such thing as zero tolerance. That doesn’t apply to us.” Indeed, the evidence of a sudden rise in incidents only adds to the huge body of work over the years that has documented a creeping acceptance in the UK of hostility towards people of Muslim faith. As early as 2011, the then chairman of the Conservative party, Sayeeda Warsi, the first Muslim woman to attend cabinet, had warned that prejudice against Muslims had become normalised, “passing the dinner table test”. The former deputy chairman of the Conservative party Lee Anderson lost the Tory whip this week, not for the substance of his comments but for failing to apologise for “wrongly” claiming that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim leader of the capital, was under the power of Islamists. Sunak, his media allies – maybe even Lee Anderson – know Sadiq Khan is no Islamist. This is tactical racism | Archie Bland Read more With cabinet ministers refusing to describe his comments as racist, Anderson doubled down on his claims on Monday , telling GB News “when you think you are right, you should never apologise because to do so would be a sign of weakness”. The war between Israel and Gaza is said by those experiencing the abuse to have only further legitimised, in the eyes of some, the espousing of long-held views about the Muslim community. On Monday, a coalition of civil society organisations, including Islamic Relief UK, the Fawcett Society and Hope Not Hate, known as the Anti-Islamophobia Working Group, wrote to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, to express their alarm at the lack of response to the claim from Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, in the Daily Telegraph that the “Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge now”. “As prime minister it is your duty to safeguard all communities, no matter their race or religion”, they demanded. Majid Iqbal, chief executive of the the Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU), which seeks to help victims bring cases to the police, said they had recorded a 365% increase in cases crossing their desk since October with “lots of incidents of Islamophobia on public transport [directed at] individuals who’ve attended protests, just generally in the street, and in their everyday life”. On Monday morning, the charity received an email typical of its sort. “I’m sick and tired of you lot moaning about racism when YOU are the problem,” wrote ‘Marie Conway’. “This war has NOTHING to do with the UK, OUR country, you are racist against Jewish people who’ve lived here peacefully until you came here. You are NOT welcome or wanted here. We will pay for your airfare home. So instead of being cowards, you can go and fight for your beliefs. If not shut up. As the true English people like myself don’t care about you.” Mohammed Kozbar, general secretary of the Finsbury Park mosque, where worshippers were subject to a terrorist attack in 2017, which killed one man and left 12 injured, said he had reported a number of incidents to the police since October. He said: “We’ve seen people standing outside the mosque shouting in an Islamophobic and racist way, attacking the community. We’ve seen offensive emails as well attacking the community, talking about the faith itself, the prophet, the Qur’an. So it’s about dehumanising the Muslim community. “We hope that the police get to the bottom of it but from our experience, to be honest, most of the cases, I’m talking about probably 99% of the cases, nothing has been done about it and that’s an issue which the police needs to deal with.” Kamran Hussain, chief executive of the British Muslim Heritage Centre in Manchester, said he was concerned by the rhetoric used by some media outlets and by prominent politicians. His organisation is now training up staff to provide a “hate crime” reporting service. Mohammed Saeed, chair of trustees at the Green Lane mosque, in Birmingham, the country’s largest, said they were also in regular contact with West Midlands police but that leadership from Downing Street was now required. “We continuously receive Islamophobic hate,” Saeed said. “Support is needed from our government in these challenging times.” T he driver was said to have slowed down to let Misbah Sadique, 37, and her friend Kulsum, cross the road. They were close to home in Waltham Forest and felt safe in a part of east London that they knew well. But, as they stepped out, the car in front of them suddenly, inexplicably, accelerated, one of the women later alleged. It is said that Kulsum was thrown to the ground by the force of the impact and that Misbah was dragged under the vehicle. She claims she was lucky to escape with breaks to her right ankle and foot, ribs and right arm, on top of extensive bruising and abrasions. Three weeks later, she remains in hospital, traumatised and facing a long road to recovery. The driver, who did not leave the scene, gave a statement by the side of the road and the police have categorised what happened as a road traffic incident. No arrests were made. But Misbah and Kulsum had both been wearing hijabs. Misbah, who has given a statement to the police in recent days, is calling, with the support of her family and the charity, The Islamophobia Response Unit , for the incident on 1 February to be further investigated as a potential hate crime. “The immense emotional distress and trauma [of the incident] was made worse as we felt the people who were supposed to protect us and make us feel safe were disregarding their duty of care to us,” said Nazia Tayyib, a cousin of Misbah’s, speaking on her behalf. The Met said officers did open a hate crime investigation in response to concerns raised with them. “However, our investigation – including viewing of CCTV – leads us to believe that the women were not in any way deliberately targeted,” said Ch Supt Simon Crick, who is in charge of policing Waltham Forest. “This was an unfortunate road traffic collision.” The police said they had asked specialists to review the case as well but that they had come to the same conclusion. But that Misbah should consider someone capable of running her down purely due to her faith might be in itself be regarded as a damning insight into modern Britain. Anti-racism campaigners within the Muslim community say people are feeling vulnerable and faith in the authorities is at a dangerously low ebb. Should the outlook of these two terrified young women really come as a surprise, it is asked? The Tell Mama charity has documented 2,010 Islamophobic incidents in the UK since 7 October, when Hamas’s murderous attack triggered the war with Israel. This compares with 600 such incidents in the same period in the previous year. Muslim women were targeted in two out of every three incidents recorded. View image in fullscreen Shaista Gohir. Photograph: Sean Smith/The Guardian Shaista Gohir, leader of the Muslim Women’s Network, said the impact of Islamophobia could be particularly acute for women. “Because of the negativity around Islam and faith, there’s this perception amongst the public, which is a narrative that’s been kind of reinforced by politicians and also media as well, that Muslim women are kind of oppressed and forced to cover up,” she said. “It seems it’s actually OK to become acceptable now, to say very negative things about Muslims, even if you’re a public figure … When it comes to Islamophobia, there is a tolerance to it, that there is no such thing as zero tolerance. That doesn’t apply to us.” Indeed, the evidence of a sudden rise in incidents only adds to the huge body of work over the years that has documented a creeping acceptance in the UK of hostility towards people of Muslim faith. As early as 2011, the then chairman of the Conservative party, Sayeeda Warsi, the first Muslim woman to attend cabinet, had warned that prejudice against Muslims had become normalised, “passing the dinner table test”. The former deputy chairman of the Conservative party Lee Anderson lost the Tory whip this week, not for the substance of his comments but for failing to apologise for “wrongly” claiming that the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim leader of the capital, was under the power of Islamists. Sunak, his media allies – maybe even Lee Anderson – know Sadiq Khan is no Islamist. This is tactical racism | Archie Bland Read more With cabinet ministers refusing to describe his comments as racist, Anderson doubled down on his claims on Monday , telling GB News “when you think you are right, you should never apologise because to do so would be a sign of weakness”. The war between Israel and Gaza is said by those experiencing the abuse to have only further legitimised, in the eyes of some, the espousing of long-held views about the Muslim community. On Monday, a coalition of civil society organisations, including Islamic Relief UK, the Fawcett Society and Hope Not Hate, known as the Anti-Islamophobia Working Group, wrote to the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, to express their alarm at the lack of response to the claim from Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, in the Daily Telegraph that the “Islamists, the extremists and the antisemites are in charge now”. “As prime minister it is your duty to safeguard all communities, no matter their race or religion”, they demanded. Majid Iqbal, chief executive of the the Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU), which seeks to help victims bring cases to the police, said they had recorded a 365% increase in cases crossing their desk since October with “lots of incidents of Islamophobia on public transport [directed at] individuals who’ve attended protests, just generally in the street, and in their everyday life”. On Monday morning, the charity received an email typical of its sort. “I’m sick and tired of you lot moaning about racism when YOU are the problem,” wrote ‘Marie Conway’. “This war has NOTHING to do with the UK, OUR country, you are racist against Jewish people who’ve lived here peacefully until you came here. You are NOT welcome or wanted here. We will pay for your airfare home. So instead of being cowards, you can go and fight for your beliefs. If not shut up. As the true English people like myself don’t care about you.” Mohammed Kozbar, general secretary of the Finsbury Park mosque, where worshippers were subject to a terrorist attack in 2017, which killed one man and left 12 injured, said he had reported a number of incidents to the police since October. He said: “We’ve seen people standing outside the mosque shouting in an Islamophobic and racist way, attacking the community. We’ve seen offensive emails as well attacking the community, talking about the faith itself, the prophet, the Qur’an. So it’s about dehumanising the Muslim community. “We hope that the police get to the bottom of it but from our experience, to be honest, most of the cases, I’m talking about probably 99% of the cases, nothing has been done about it and that’s an issue which the police needs to deal with.” Kamran Hussain, chief executive of the British Muslim Heritage Centre in Manchester, said he was concerned by the rhetoric used by some media outlets and by prominent politicians. His organisation is now training up staff to provide a “hate crime” reporting service. Mohammed Saeed, chair of trustees at the Green Lane mosque, in Birmingham, the country’s largest, said they were also in regular contact with West Midlands police but that leadership from Downing Street was now required. “We continuously receive Islamophobic hate,” Saeed said. “Support is needed from our government in these challenging times.” T he driver was said to have slowed down to let Misbah Sadique, 37, and her friend Kulsum, cross the road. They were close to home in Waltham Forest and felt safe in a part of east London that they knew well. But, as they stepped out, the car in front of them suddenly, inexplicably, accelerated, one of the women later alleged. It is said that Kulsum was thrown to the ground by the force of the impact and that Misbah was dragged under the vehicle. She claims she was lucky to escape with breaks to her right ankle and foot, ribs and right arm, on top of extensive bruising and abrasions. Three weeks later, she remains in hospital, traumatised and facing a long road to recovery. The driver, who did not leave the scene, gave a statement by the side of the road and
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
‘I recently went back to the Texas border – and urinated on the wall’: how we made Lone Star
‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy View image in fullscreen ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old ‘I recently went back to the Texas border – and urinated on the wall’: how we made Lone Star This article is more than 1 year old ‘The film was 20 years ahead of its time. Look at what we’re dealing with now – border conflict is a nightmare’ John Sayles , writer and director We decided to make a film about the Texas border after going there in 1978 to shoot a cameo in the Joe Dante film Piranha, which I wrote. On my day off, I visited the Alamo in San Antonio. What I knew about the battle was mostly the Walt Disney version – Davy Crockett and all that. But the day I was there, Chicano-Americans were protesting, saying: “Tell the whole story.” I got interested in its racial complexity, the fact there were Mexicans fighting for the US, too, and that the “freedom” the Texans were fighting for was the freedom to own slaves. That’s a major part that gets left out. The kind of story Lone Star tells – about the fate of white racist sheriff Charlie Wade, played by Kris Kristofferson – isn’t that uncommon. A person has a reign with an inordinate amount of power. My script had elements of a western, but it was more of a detective story. It was one of those rare instances where I wrote it and we got the money to make it right away. I cast Chris Cooper as the present-day sheriff investigating Wade’s murder because he had that iconic American Gary Cooper thing. One thing he can do very well is play a subtext, which was needed in interrogation scenes. In those, he is essentially asking: what kind of man was my father, the sheriff who challenged and replaced Wade? It’s not easy to get the performance right when you’re shooting out of sequence. Chris constantly had to ask himself where his character was in the mystery story and what he was feeling. I never do rehearsals – I want the shock of the new. Matthew McConaughey, who plays Chris’s father Buddy, had only done one movie before: Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused . I needed a guy who didn’t have any star weight but who had the presence to play off against Kristofferson. I didn’t want normal cuts between present and past, so I did a lot of live transitions, which were a lot of fun for the crew to figure out. In the first one – where the camera starts on a basket of tortillas as we switch from the present into Kristofferson’s timeline – Clifton James , the old character actor narrating the story, couldn’t get out of shot quickly enough. So the grips had to pick him up in his chair and get him out of the way to be replaced by Matthew in the past. Doing those seamless transitions gave the sense that these characters all carry their history around with them. I don’t think we’ve made any progress on border issues since the movie was made. Back then, it didn’t have the same tension. The border patrol would just say no me hagas correr to illegal immigrants – don’t make me run – and deport them. I don’t think a wall is the answer: it’s like a Christo installation that has cost billions of dollars. I recently visited it with a friend and we urinated on it. View image in fullscreen Presence … Kris Kristofferson in Lone Star. Photograph: AJ Pics/Alamy Chris Cooper , actor John first told me the story over dinner with his partner, the film’s producer Maggie Renzi. Only at the end did I realise he wanted me to play Sam Deeds, the present-day sheriff, which knocked me off my chair. He used this word for him: “laconic”. I said: “Why does he have to be laconic?” John eventually said: “I wrote this for you, because you’re laconic.” It took me a little while to go with it. The script was across-the-tables, one-on-one, human-to-human, which is what I thrive on. We didn’t have that green-screen nonsense back then. John does something few other directors do: he gives you a couple of pages of character background – a great springboard for getting on the same track as him. But I was already extremely familiar with Texas. Everyone on both sides of my family is Texan going back generations. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion For Sam and his father Buddy, I drew on memories of my relationship with my father. We loved each other, but had our ups and downs. He was very conservative, and we were at opposite extremes politically. He thought acting was the silliest thing a person could do. Him being a doctor, he’d say: “You want to see drama?” And he’d take me to the emergency room. I didn’t realise the transgressive nature of what was happening between me and Pilar, the schoolteacher played by Elizabeth Peña, until my second read-through. Maggie said to me: “Their dance scene and the love scene afterwards have to work.” Elizabeth and I fell back on to the bed, and John shot us from the chest up. The selling point for Maggie was when I reached over and played with Elizabeth’s hair and tickled her ear. It was the kind of thing I do with my wife. John is 20 years ahead in his storytelling. Look at what we’re dealing with now. Border conflict is a nightmare. The way John did those transitions suggests history is never too far away from the present. That’s the film’s legacy: things don’t change too quickly, if ever. Explore more on these topics Film How we made Westerns Kris Kristofferson features Share Reuse this content ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy View image in fullscreen ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old ‘I recently went back to the Texas border – and urinated on the wall’: how we made Lone Star This article is more than 1 year old ‘The film was 20 years ahead of its time. Look at what we’re dealing with now – border conflict is a nightmare’ John Sayles , writer and director We decided to make a film about the Texas border after going there in 1978 to shoot a cameo in the Joe Dante film Piranha, which I wrote. On my day off, I visited the Alamo in San Antonio. What I knew about the battle was mostly the Walt Disney version – Davy Crockett and all that. But the day I was there, Chicano-Americans were protesting, saying: “Tell the whole story.” I got interested in its racial complexity, the fact there were Mexicans fighting for the US, too, and that the “freedom” the Texans were fighting for was the freedom to own slaves. That’s a major part that gets left out. The kind of story Lone Star tells – about the fate of white racist sheriff Charlie Wade, played by Kris Kristofferson – isn’t that uncommon. A person has a reign with an inordinate amount of power. My script had elements of a western, but it was more of a detective story. It was one of those rare instances where I wrote it and we got the money to make it right away. I cast Chris Cooper as the present-day sheriff investigating Wade’s murder because he had that iconic American Gary Cooper thing. One thing he can do very well is play a subtext, which was needed in interrogation scenes. In those, he is essentially asking: what kind of man was my father, the sheriff who challenged and replaced Wade? It’s not easy to get the performance right when you’re shooting out of sequence. Chris constantly had to ask himself where his character was in the mystery story and what he was feeling. I never do rehearsals – I want the shock of the new. Matthew McConaughey, who plays Chris’s father Buddy, had only done one movie before: Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused . I needed a guy who didn’t have any star weight but who had the presence to play off against Kristofferson. I didn’t want normal cuts between present and past, so I did a lot of live transitions, which were a lot of fun for the crew to figure out. In the first one – where the camera starts on a basket of tortillas as we switch from the present into Kristofferson’s timeline – Clifton James , the old character actor narrating the story, couldn’t get out of shot quickly enough. So the grips had to pick him up in his chair and get him out of the way to be replaced by Matthew in the past. Doing those seamless transitions gave the sense that these characters all carry their history around with them. I don’t think we’ve made any progress on border issues since the movie was made. Back then, it didn’t have the same tension. The border patrol would just say no me hagas correr to illegal immigrants – don’t make me run – and deport them. I don’t think a wall is the answer: it’s like a Christo installation that has cost billions of dollars. I recently visited it with a friend and we urinated on it. View image in fullscreen Presence … Kris Kristofferson in Lone Star. Photograph: AJ Pics/Alamy Chris Cooper , actor John first told me the story over dinner with his partner, the film’s producer Maggie Renzi. Only at the end did I realise he wanted me to play Sam Deeds, the present-day sheriff, which knocked me off my chair. He used this word for him: “laconic”. I said: “Why does he have to be laconic?” John eventually said: “I wrote this for you, because you’re laconic.” It took me a little while to go with it. The script was across-the-tables, one-on-one, human-to-human, which is what I thrive on. We didn’t have that green-screen nonsense back then. John does something few other directors do: he gives you a couple of pages of character background – a great springboard for getting on the same track as him. But I was already extremely familiar with Texas. Everyone on both sides of my family is Texan going back generations. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion For Sam and his father Buddy, I drew on memories of my relationship with my father. We loved each other, but had our ups and downs. He was very conservative, and we were at opposite extremes politically. He thought acting was the silliest thing a person could do. Him being a doctor, he’d say: “You want to see drama?” And he’d take me to the emergency room. I didn’t realise the transgressive nature of what was happening between me and Pilar, the schoolteacher played by Elizabeth Peña, until my second read-through. Maggie said to me: “Their dance scene and the love scene afterwards have to work.” Elizabeth and I fell back on to the bed, and John shot us from the chest up. The selling point for Maggie was when I reached over and played with Elizabeth’s hair and tickled her ear. It was the kind of thing I do with my wife. John is 20 years ahead in his storytelling. Look at what we’re dealing with now. Border conflict is a nightmare. The way John did those transitions suggests history is never too far away from the present. That’s the film’s legacy: things don’t change too quickly, if ever. Explore more on these topics Film How we made Westerns Kris Kristofferson features Share Reuse this content ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy View image in fullscreen ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy View image in fullscreen ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy View image in fullscreen ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy View image in fullscreen ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy ‘The love scenes have to work’ … Elizabeth Peña and Chris Cooper in Lone Star. Photograph: Photo 12/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old ‘I recently went back to the Texas border – and urinated on the wall’: how we made Lone Star This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘I recently went back to the Texas border – and urinated on the wall’: how we made Lone Star This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘I recently went back to the Texas border – and urinated on the wall’: how we made Lone Star This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘The film was 20 years ahead of its time. Look at what we’re dealing with now – border conflict is a nightmare’ ‘The film was 20 years ahead of its time. Look at what we’re dealing with now – border conflict is a nightmare’ ‘The film was 20 years ahead of its time. Look at what we’re dealing with now – border conflict is a nightmare’ John Sayles , writer and director We decided to make a film about the Texas border after going there in 1978 to shoot a cameo in the Joe Dante film Piranha, which I wrote. On my day off, I visited the Alamo in San Antonio. What I knew about the battle was mostly the Walt Disney version – Davy Crockett and all that. But the day I was there, Chicano-Americans were protesting, saying: “Tell the whole story.” I got interested in its racial complexity, the fact there were Mexicans fighting for the US, too, and that the “freedom” the Texans were fighting for was the freedom to own slaves. That’s a major part that gets left out. The kind of story Lone Star tells – about the fate of white racist sheriff Charlie Wade, played by Kris Kristofferson – isn’t that uncommon. A person has a reign with an inordinate amount of power. My script had elements of a western, but it was more of a detective story. It was one of those rare instances where I wrote it and we got the money to make it right away. I cast Chris Cooper as the present-day sheriff investigating Wade’s murder because he had that iconic American Gary Cooper thing. One thing he can do very well is play a subtext, which was needed in interrogation scenes. In those, he is essentially asking: what kind of man was my father, the sheriff who challenged and replaced Wade? It’s not easy to get the performance right when you’re shooting out of sequence. Chris constantly had to ask himself where his character was in the mystery story and what he was feeling. I never do rehearsals – I want the shock of the new. Matthew McConaughey, who plays Chris’s father Buddy, had only done one movie before: Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused . I needed a guy who didn’t have any star weight but who had the presence to play off against Kristofferson. I didn’t want normal cuts between present and past, so I did a lot of live transitions, which were a lot of fun for the crew to figure out. In the first one – where the camera starts on a basket of tortillas as we switch from the present into Kristofferson’s timeline – Clifton James , the old character actor narrating the story, couldn’t get out of shot quickly enough. So the grips had to pick him up in his chair and get him out of the way to be replaced by Matthew in the past. Doing those seamless transitions gave the sense that these characters all carry their history around with them. I don’t think we’ve made any progress on border issues since the movie was made. Back then, it didn’t have the same tension. The border patrol would just say no me hagas correr to illegal immigrants – don’t make me run – and deport them. I don’t think a wall is the answer: it’s like a Christo installation that has cost billions of dollars. I recently visited it with a friend and we urinated on it. View image in fullscreen Presence … Kris Kristofferson in Lone Star. Photograph: AJ Pics/Alamy Chris Cooper , actor John first told me the story over dinner with his partner, the film’s producer Maggie Renzi. Only at the end did I realise he wanted me to play Sam Deeds, the present-day sheriff, which knocked me off my chair. He used this word for him: “laconic”. I said: “Why does he have to be laconic?” John eventually said: “I wrote this for you, because you’re laconic.” It took me a little while to go with it. The script was across-the-tables, one-on-one, human-to-human, which is what I thrive on. We didn’t have that green-screen nonsense back then. John does something few other directors do: he gives you a couple of pages of character background – a great springboard for getting on the same track as him. But I was already extremely familiar with Texas. Everyone on both sides of my family is Texan going back generations. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion For Sam and his father Buddy, I drew on memories of my relationship with my father. We loved each other, but had our ups and downs. He was very conservative, and we were at opposite extremes politically. He thought acting was the silliest thing a person could do. Him being a doctor, he’d say: “You want to see drama?” And he’d take me to the emergency room. I didn’t realise the transgressive nature of what was happening between me and Pilar, the schoolteacher played by Elizabeth Peña, until my second read-through. Maggie said to me: “Their dance scene and the love scene afterwards have to work.” Elizabeth and I fell back on to the bed, and John shot us from the chest up. The selling point for Maggie was when I reached over and played with Elizabeth’s hair and tickled her ear. It was the kind of thing I do with my wife. John is 20 years ahead in his storytelling. Look at what we’re dealing with now. Border conflict is a nightmare. The way John did those transitions suggests history is never too far away from the present. That’s the film’s legacy: things don’t change too quickly, if ever. Explore more on these topics Film How we made Westerns Kris Kristofferson features Share Reuse this content John Sayles , writer and director We decided to make a film about the Texas border after going there in 1978 to shoot a cameo in the Joe Dante film Piranha, which I wrote. On my day off, I visited the Alamo in San Antonio. What I knew about the battle was mostly the Walt Disney version – Davy Crockett and all that. But the day I was there, Chicano-Americans were protesting, saying: “Tell the whole story.” I got interested in its racial complexity, the fact there were Mexicans fighting for the US, too, and that the “freedom” the Texans were fighting for was the freedom to own slaves. That’s a major part that gets left out. The kind of story Lone Star tells – about the fate of white racist sheriff Charlie Wade, played by Kris Kristofferson – isn’t that uncommon. A person has a reign with an inordinate amount of power. My script had elements of a western, but it was more of a detective story. It was one of those rare instances where I wrote it and we got the money to make it right away. I cast Chris Cooper as the present-day sheriff investigating Wade’s murder because he had that iconic American Gary Cooper thing. One thing he can do very well is play a subtext, which was needed in interrogation scenes. In those, he is essentially asking: what kind of man was my father, the sheriff who challenged and replaced Wade? It’s not easy to get the performance right when you’re shooting out of sequence. Chris constantly had to ask himself where his character was in the mystery story and what he was feeling. I never do rehearsals – I want the shock of the new. Matthew McConaughey, who plays Chris’s father Buddy, had only done one movie before: Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused . I needed a guy who didn’t have any star weight but who had the presence to play off against Kristofferson. I didn’t want normal cuts between present and past, so I did a lot of live transitions, which were a lot of fun for the crew to figure out. In the first one – where the camera starts on a basket of tortillas as we switch from the present into Kristofferson’s timeline – Clifton James , the old character actor narrating the story, couldn’t get out of shot quickly enough. So the grips had to pick him up in his chair and get him out of the way to be replaced by Matthew in the past. Doing those seamless transitions gave the sense that these characters all carry their history around with them. I don’t think we’ve made any progress on border issues since the movie was made. Back then, it didn’t have the same tension. The border patrol would just say no me hagas correr to illegal immigrants – don’t make me run – and deport them. I don’t think a wall is the answer: it’s like a Christo installation that has cost billions of dollars. I recently visited it with a friend and we urinated on it. View image in fullscreen Presence … Kris Kristofferson in Lone Star. Photograph: AJ Pics/Alamy Chris Cooper , actor John first told me the story over dinner with his partner, the film’s producer Maggie Renzi. Only at the end did I realise he wanted me to play Sam Deeds, the present-day sheriff, which knocked me off my chair. He used this word for him: “laconic”. I said: “Why does he have to be laconic?” John eventually said: “I wrote this for you, because you’re laconic.” It took me a little while to go with it. The script was across-the-tables, one-on-one, human-to-human, which is what I thrive on. We didn’t have that green-screen nonsense back then. John does something few other directors do: he gives you a couple of pages of character background – a great springboard for getting on the same track as him. But I was already extremely familiar with Texas. Everyone on both sides of my family is Texan going back generations. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion For Sam and his father Buddy, I drew on memories of my relationship with my father. We loved each other, but had our ups and downs. He was very conservative, and we were at opposite extremes politically. He thought acting was the silliest thing a person could do. Him being a doctor, he’d say: “You want to see drama?” And he’d take me to the emergency room. I didn’t realise the transgressive nature of what was happening between me and Pilar, the schoolteacher played by Elizabeth Peña, until my second read-through. Maggie said to me: “Their dance scene and the love scene afterwards have to work.” Elizabeth and I fell back on to the bed, and John shot us from the chest up. The selling point for Maggie was when I reached over and played with Elizabeth’s hair and tickled her ear. It was the kind of thing I do with my wife. John is 20 years ahead in his storytelling. Look at what we’re dealing with now. Border conflict is a nightmare. The way John did those transitions suggests history is never too far away from the present. That’s the film’s legacy: things don’t change too quickly, if ever. Explore more on these topics Film How we made Westerns Kris Kristofferson features Share Reuse this content John Sayles , writer and director We decided to make a film about the Texas border after going there in 1978 to shoot a cameo in the Joe Dante film Piranha, which I wrote. On my day off, I visited the Alamo in San Antonio. What I knew about the battle was mostly the Walt Disney version – Davy Crockett and all that. But the day I was there, Chicano-Americans were protesting, saying: “Tell the whole story.” I got interested in its racial complexity, the fact there were Mexicans fighting for the US, too, and that the “freedom” the Texans were fighting for was the freedom to own slaves. That’s a major part that gets left out. The kind of story Lone Star tells – about the fate of white racist sheriff Charlie Wade, played by Kris Kristofferson – isn’t that uncommon. A person has a reign with an inordinate amount of power. My script had elements of a western, but it was more of a detective story. It was one of those rare instances where I wrote it and we got the money to make it right away. I cast Chris Cooper as the present-day sheriff investigating Wade’s murder because he had that iconic American Gary Cooper thing. One thing he can do very well is play a subtext, which was needed in interrogation scenes. In those, he is essentially asking: what kind of man was my father, the sheriff who challenged and replaced Wade? It’s not easy to get the performance right when you’re shooting out of sequence. Chris constantly had to ask himself where his character was in the mystery story and what he was feeling. I never do rehearsals – I want the shock of the new. Matthew McConaughey, who plays Chris’s father Buddy, had only done one movie before: Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused . I needed a guy who didn’t have any star weight but who had the presence to play off against Kristofferson. I didn’t want normal cuts between present and past, so I did a lot of live transitions, which were a lot of fun for the crew to figure out. In the first one – where the camera starts on a basket of tortillas as we switch from the present into Kristofferson’s timeline – Clifton James , the old character actor narrating the story, couldn’t get out of shot quickly enough. So the grips had to pick him up in his chair and get him out of the way to be replaced by Matthew in the past. Doing those seamless transitions gave the sense that these characters all carry their history around with them. I don’t think we’ve made any progress on border issues since the movie was made. Back then, it didn’t have the same tension. The border patrol would just say no me hagas correr to illegal immigrants – don’t make me run – and deport them. I don’t think a wall is the answer: it’s like a Christo installation that has cost billions of dollars. I recently visited it with a friend and we urinated on it. View image in fullscreen Presence … Kris Kristofferson in Lone Star. Photograph: AJ Pics/Alamy Chris Cooper , actor John first told me the story over dinner with his partner, the film’s producer Maggie Renzi. Only at the end did I realise he wanted me to play Sam Deeds, the present-day sheriff, which knocked me off my chair. He used this word for him: “laconic”. I said: “Why does he have to be laconic?” John eventually said: “I wrote this for you, because you’re laconic.” It took me a little while to go with it. The script was across-the-tables, one-on-one, human-to-human, which is what I thrive on. We didn’t have that green-screen nonsense back then. John does something few other directors do: he gives you a couple of pages of character background – a great springboard for getting on the same track as him. But I was already extremely familiar with Texas. Everyone on both sides of my family is Texan going back generations. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion For Sam and his father Buddy, I drew on memories of my relationship with my father. We loved each other, but had our ups and downs. He was very conservative, and we were at opposite extremes politically. He thought acting was the silliest thing a person could do. Him being a doctor, he’d say: “You want to see drama?” And he’d take me to the emergency room. I didn’t realise the transgressive nature of what was happening between me and Pilar, the schoolteacher played by Elizabeth Peña, until my second read-through. Maggie said to me: “Their dance scene and the love scene afterwards have to work.” Elizabeth and I fell back on to the bed, and John shot us from the chest up. The selling point for Maggie was when I reached over and played with Elizabeth’s hair and tickled her ear. It was the kind of thing I do with my wife. John is 20 years ahead in his storytelling. Look at what we’re dealing with now. Border conflict is a nightmare. The way John did those transitions suggests history is never too far away from the present. That’s the film’s legacy: things don’t change too quickly, if ever. John Sayles , writer and director We decided to make a film about the Texas border after going there in 1978 to shoot a cameo in the Joe Dante film Piranha, which I wrote. On my day off, I visited the Alamo in San Antonio. What I knew about the battle was mostly the Walt Disney version – Davy Crockett and all that. But the day I was there, Chicano-Americans were protesting, saying: “Tell the whole story.” I got interested in its racial complexity, the fact there were Mexicans fighting for the US, too, and that the “freedom” the Texans were fighting for was the freedom to own slaves. That’s a major part that gets left out. The kind of story Lone Star tells – about the fate of white racist sheriff Charlie Wade, played by Kris Kristofferson – isn’t that uncommon. A person has a reign with an inordinate amount of power. My script had elements of a western, but it was more of a detective story. It was one of those rare instances where I wrote it and we got the money to make it right away. I cast Chris Cooper as the present-day sheriff investigating Wade’s murder because he had that iconic American Gary Cooper thing. One thing he can do very well is play a subtext, which was needed in interrogation scenes. In those, he is essentially asking: what kind of man was my father, the sheriff who challenged and replaced Wade? It’s not easy to get the performance right when you’re shooting out of sequence. Chris constantly had to ask himself where his character was in the mystery story and what he was feeling. I never do rehearsals – I want the shock of the new. Matthew McConaughey, who plays Chris’s father Buddy, had only done one movie before: Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused . I needed a guy who didn’t have any star weight but who had the presence to play off against Kristofferson. I didn’t want normal cuts between present and past, so I did a lot of live transitions, which were a lot of fun for the crew to figure out. In the first one – where the camera starts on a basket of tortillas as we switch from the present into Kristofferson’s timeline – Clifton James , the old character actor narrating the story, couldn’t get out of shot quickly enough. So the grips had to pick him up in his chair and get him out of the way to be replaced by Matthew in the past. Doing those seamless transitions gave the sense that these characters all carry their history around with them. I don’t think we’ve made any progress on border issues since the movie was made. Back then, it didn’t have the same tension. The border patrol would just say no me hagas correr to illegal immigrants – don’t make me run – and deport them. I don’t think a wall is the answer: it’s like a Christo installation that has cost billions of dollars. I recently visited it with a friend and we urinated on it. View image in fullscreen Presence … Kris Kristofferson in Lone Star. Photograph: AJ Pics/Alamy Chris Cooper , actor John first told me the story over dinner with his partner, the film’s producer Maggie Renzi. Only at the end did I realise he wanted me to play Sam Deeds, the present-day sheriff, which knocked me off my chair. He used this word for him: “laconic”. I said: “Why does he have to be laconic?” John eventually said: “I wrote this for you, because you’re laconic.” It took me a little while to go with it. The script was across-the-tables, one-on-one, human-to-human, which is what I thrive on. We didn’t have that green-screen nonsense back then. John does something few other directors do: he gives you a couple of pages of character background – a great springboard for getting on the same track as him. But I was already extremely familiar with Texas. Everyone on both sides of my family is Texan going back generations. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion For Sam and his father Buddy, I drew on memories of my relationship with my father. We loved each other, but had our ups and downs. He was very conservative, and we were at opposite extremes politically. He thought acting was the silliest thing a person could do. Him being a doctor, he’d say: “You want to see drama?” And he’d take me to the emergency room. I didn’t realise the transgressive nature of what was happening between me and Pilar, the schoolteacher played by Elizabeth Peña, until my second read-through. Maggie said to me: “Their dance scene and the love scene afterwards have to work.” Elizabeth and I fell back on to the bed, and John shot us from the chest up. The selling point for Maggie was when I reached over and played with Elizabeth’s hair and tickled her ear. It was the kind of thing I do with my wife. John is 20 years ahead in his storytelling. Look at what we’re dealing with now. Border conflict is a nightmare. The way John did those transitions suggests history is never too far away from the present. That’s the film’s legacy: things don’t change too quickly, if ever. We decided to make a film about the Texas border after going there in 1978 to shoot a cameo in the Joe Dante film Piranha, which I wrote. On my day off, I visited the Alamo in San Antonio. What I knew about the battle was mostly the Walt Disney version – Davy Crockett and all that. But the day I was there, Chicano-Americans were protesting, saying: “Tell the whole story.” I got interested in its racial complexity, the fact there were Mexicans fighting for the US, too, and that the “freedom” the Texans were fighting for was the freedom to own slaves. That’s a major part that gets left out. The kind of story Lone Star tells – about the fate of white racist sheriff Charlie Wade, played by Kris Kristofferson – isn’t that uncommon. A person has a reign with an inordinate amount of power. My script had elements of a western, but it was more of a detective story. It was one of those rare instances where I wrote it and we got the money to make it right away. I cast Chris Cooper as the present-day sheriff investigating Wade’s murder because he had that iconic American Gary Cooper thing. One thing he can do very well is play a subtext, which was needed in interrogation scenes. In those, he is essentially asking: what kind of man was my father, the sheriff who challenged and replaced Wade? It’s not easy to get the performance right when you’re shooting out of sequence. Chris constantly had to ask himself where his character was in the mystery story and what he was feeling. I never do rehearsals – I want the shock of the new. Matthew McConaughey, who plays Chris’s father Buddy, had only done one movie before: Richard Linklater’s Dazed and Confused . I needed a guy who didn’t have any star weight but who had the presence to play off against Kristofferson. I didn’t want normal cuts between present and past, so I did a lot of live transitions, which were a lot of fun for the crew to figure out. In the first one – where the camera starts on a basket of tortillas as we switch from the present into Kristofferson’s timeline – Clifton James , the old character actor narrating the story, couldn’t get out of shot quickly enough. So the grips had to pick him up in his chair and get him out of the way to be replaced by Matthew in the past. Doing those seamless transitions gave the sense that these characters all carry their history around with them. I don’t think we’ve made any progress on border issues since the movie was made. Back then, it didn’t have the same tension. The border patrol would just say no me hagas correr to illegal immigrants – don’t make me run – and deport them. I don’t think a wall is the answer: it’s like a Christo installation that has cost billions of dollars. I recently visited it with a friend and we urinated on it. John first told me the story over dinner with his partner, the film’s producer Maggie Renzi. Only at the end did I realise he wanted me to play Sam Deeds, the present-day sheriff, which knocked me off my chair. He used this word for him: “laconic”. I said: “Why does he have to be laconic?” John eventually said: “I wrote this for you, because you’re laconic.” It took me a little while to go with it. The script was across-the-tables, one-on-one, human-to-human, which is what I thrive on. We didn’t have that green-screen nonsense back then. John does something few other directors do: he gives you a couple of pages of character background – a great springboard for getting on the same track as him. But I was already extremely familiar with Texas. Everyone on both sides of my family is Texan going back generations. For Sam and his father Buddy, I drew on memories of my relationship with my father. We loved each other, but had our ups and downs. He was very conservative, and we were at opposite extremes politically. He thought acting was the silliest thing a person could do. Him being a doctor, he’d say: “You want to see drama?” And he’d take me to the emergency room. I didn’t realise the transgressive nature of what was happening between me and Pilar, the schoolteacher played by Elizabeth Peña, until my second read-through. Maggie said to me: “Their dance scene and the love scene afterwards have to work.” Elizabeth and I fell back on to the bed, and John shot us from the chest up. The selling point for Maggie was when I reached over and played with Elizabeth’s hair and tickled her ear. It was the kind of thing I do with my wife. John is 20 years ahead in his storytelling. Look at what we’re dealing with now. Border conflict is a nightmare. The way John did those transitions suggests history is never too far away from the present. That’s the film’s legacy: things don’t change too quickly, if ever. Explore more on these topics Film How we made Westerns Kris Kristofferson features Share Reuse this content Film How we made Westerns Kris Kristofferson features |
SNP says Speaker has ‘broken his word’ by not allowing emergency debate on Gaza – as it happened
Stephen Flynn , the SNP leader at Westminster, has accused Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, of breaking his promise to allow an emergency debate on Gaza . In a statement responding to the speaker’s statement (see 3.49pm ), Flynn said: Yet again, Westminster is failing the people of Gaza by blocking a vote on the urgent action the UK government must take to help make an immediate ceasefire happen. For months, the UK parliament has blocked SNP calls for an immediate ceasefire – and now it’s blocking a vote on the concrete actions the UK government must pursue to make an immediate ceasefire more likely … It’s regrettable that this inexplicable decision will further erode trust in the speaker. The speaker broke the rules last week – and this week he has broken his word. How can MPs have any trust in the speaker when he makes a public commitment one minute, only to rip it up the next. If 30,000 dead Palestinians aren’t worthy of an emergency debate – what is? Collectively the SNP has decided it no longer has confidence in the speaker because of what happened last week. There are now 77 MPs who have signed the Commons early day motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle, up from 71 at the end of last week. |
Sacked UK borders inspector tells MPs he was removed ‘for doing his job’
David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA This article is more than 1 year old Sacked UK borders inspector tells MPs he was removed ‘for doing his job’ This article is more than 1 year old David Neal criticises ‘shocking leadership’ at Home Office, as charities say asylum system is at risk The UK’s sacked borders inspector has told MPs he was removed “for doing his job”, as refugee charities told the home secretary that the sacking of David Neal had left the asylum system at risk. Neal, who was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told a parliamentary committee of “shocking leadership” at the top of the Home Office. He also claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was dismissed during a Microsoft Teams video call. In a letter seen by the Guardian, more than 40 refugee charities have told James Cleverly that a failure to appoint a new borders watchdog “creates a vacuum” of independent oversight. Neal was removed amid complaints that the Home Office was delaying the publication of 15 of his inspectorate’s reports. Told of Neal’s criticisms, Cleverly defended the the Home Office. He said: “I made it absolutely clear that David was to be contacted directly. That is what I instructed and that is what happened. “I’ve not had a chance to listen to exactly what he said. I’m not going to try and comment on things that I haven’t heard directly. “It was disappointing the sequence of events that led to me asking him to stand down but we have remained professional throughout this process.” A Home Office statement said Neal was sacked for breaching his contract after speaking to the Daily Mail about concerns over airport security. At a hearing of the home affairs select committee, Neal said he had a duty to speak out, which was in line with his responsibilities as the borders watchdog. “I’ve been sacked for doing my job. I think I’ve been sacked for doing what the law asks of me and I’ve breached, I’ve fallen down over a clause in my employment contract, which I think is a crying shame.” His tenure as the independent borders watchdog was due to end on 21 March and he claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was ultimately fired. “I now know that the Home Office, so the ministers, supported my reappointment, my extension, my reappointment. And the home secretary supported my reappointment. “That reappointment process was sent to the Cabinet Office and that was sent on to No 10 and it was turned down by No 10. So, I’ve no idea why it was turned down by No 10.” No 10’s role emerged as part of a judicial review about the management of Manston migrant processing centre in 2022, he said. As first disclosed in the Guardian , Neal said he was sacked in a video conference call by a senior civil servant. “Worse than that, for my high-performing team of 30 civil servants, the notification that I was sacked was in the media before my team or I had had the chance to speak to them, which is just shocking. Shocking leadership.” Neal, who was responsible for the assurance and inspection of the UK’s detention facilities while in the armed forces, said the advice to his successor when they are eventually appointed would be “don’t press the nuclear button too early”. He added: “There is a role in public life, for sure, for people who speak truth to power.” More than 40 refugee charities including Freedom from Torture and the Refugee Council have written to Cleverly expressing their concern at Neal’s sacking and how it will affect the asylum system. “Vital inspections” into asylum accommodation including the Bibby Stockholm barge and the RAF Wethersfield site , as well as a report into the handling of modern slavery and human trafficking claims, cannot be submitted without an inspector, they said. “Effectively disabling independent scrutiny of a highly controversial policy area constitutes yet another step towards the erosion of government accountability, and follows close behind similar moves to weaken judicial oversight and limit people’s power to protest. Such actions fundamentally undermine our democratic society,” the letter says. Home Office sources have said it could take up to nine months to hire a new inspector at a time when the government hopes to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Home Office James Cleverly news Share Reuse this content David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA This article is more than 1 year old Sacked UK borders inspector tells MPs he was removed ‘for doing his job’ This article is more than 1 year old David Neal criticises ‘shocking leadership’ at Home Office, as charities say asylum system is at risk The UK’s sacked borders inspector has told MPs he was removed “for doing his job”, as refugee charities told the home secretary that the sacking of David Neal had left the asylum system at risk. Neal, who was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told a parliamentary committee of “shocking leadership” at the top of the Home Office. He also claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was dismissed during a Microsoft Teams video call. In a letter seen by the Guardian, more than 40 refugee charities have told James Cleverly that a failure to appoint a new borders watchdog “creates a vacuum” of independent oversight. Neal was removed amid complaints that the Home Office was delaying the publication of 15 of his inspectorate’s reports. Told of Neal’s criticisms, Cleverly defended the the Home Office. He said: “I made it absolutely clear that David was to be contacted directly. That is what I instructed and that is what happened. “I’ve not had a chance to listen to exactly what he said. I’m not going to try and comment on things that I haven’t heard directly. “It was disappointing the sequence of events that led to me asking him to stand down but we have remained professional throughout this process.” A Home Office statement said Neal was sacked for breaching his contract after speaking to the Daily Mail about concerns over airport security. At a hearing of the home affairs select committee, Neal said he had a duty to speak out, which was in line with his responsibilities as the borders watchdog. “I’ve been sacked for doing my job. I think I’ve been sacked for doing what the law asks of me and I’ve breached, I’ve fallen down over a clause in my employment contract, which I think is a crying shame.” His tenure as the independent borders watchdog was due to end on 21 March and he claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was ultimately fired. “I now know that the Home Office, so the ministers, supported my reappointment, my extension, my reappointment. And the home secretary supported my reappointment. “That reappointment process was sent to the Cabinet Office and that was sent on to No 10 and it was turned down by No 10. So, I’ve no idea why it was turned down by No 10.” No 10’s role emerged as part of a judicial review about the management of Manston migrant processing centre in 2022, he said. As first disclosed in the Guardian , Neal said he was sacked in a video conference call by a senior civil servant. “Worse than that, for my high-performing team of 30 civil servants, the notification that I was sacked was in the media before my team or I had had the chance to speak to them, which is just shocking. Shocking leadership.” Neal, who was responsible for the assurance and inspection of the UK’s detention facilities while in the armed forces, said the advice to his successor when they are eventually appointed would be “don’t press the nuclear button too early”. He added: “There is a role in public life, for sure, for people who speak truth to power.” More than 40 refugee charities including Freedom from Torture and the Refugee Council have written to Cleverly expressing their concern at Neal’s sacking and how it will affect the asylum system. “Vital inspections” into asylum accommodation including the Bibby Stockholm barge and the RAF Wethersfield site , as well as a report into the handling of modern slavery and human trafficking claims, cannot be submitted without an inspector, they said. “Effectively disabling independent scrutiny of a highly controversial policy area constitutes yet another step towards the erosion of government accountability, and follows close behind similar moves to weaken judicial oversight and limit people’s power to protest. Such actions fundamentally undermine our democratic society,” the letter says. Home Office sources have said it could take up to nine months to hire a new inspector at a time when the government hopes to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Home Office James Cleverly news Share Reuse this content David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA View image in fullscreen David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA David Neal was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Photograph: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA This article is more than 1 year old Sacked UK borders inspector tells MPs he was removed ‘for doing his job’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sacked UK borders inspector tells MPs he was removed ‘for doing his job’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Sacked UK borders inspector tells MPs he was removed ‘for doing his job’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old David Neal criticises ‘shocking leadership’ at Home Office, as charities say asylum system is at risk David Neal criticises ‘shocking leadership’ at Home Office, as charities say asylum system is at risk David Neal criticises ‘shocking leadership’ at Home Office, as charities say asylum system is at risk The UK’s sacked borders inspector has told MPs he was removed “for doing his job”, as refugee charities told the home secretary that the sacking of David Neal had left the asylum system at risk. Neal, who was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told a parliamentary committee of “shocking leadership” at the top of the Home Office. He also claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was dismissed during a Microsoft Teams video call. In a letter seen by the Guardian, more than 40 refugee charities have told James Cleverly that a failure to appoint a new borders watchdog “creates a vacuum” of independent oversight. Neal was removed amid complaints that the Home Office was delaying the publication of 15 of his inspectorate’s reports. Told of Neal’s criticisms, Cleverly defended the the Home Office. He said: “I made it absolutely clear that David was to be contacted directly. That is what I instructed and that is what happened. “I’ve not had a chance to listen to exactly what he said. I’m not going to try and comment on things that I haven’t heard directly. “It was disappointing the sequence of events that led to me asking him to stand down but we have remained professional throughout this process.” A Home Office statement said Neal was sacked for breaching his contract after speaking to the Daily Mail about concerns over airport security. At a hearing of the home affairs select committee, Neal said he had a duty to speak out, which was in line with his responsibilities as the borders watchdog. “I’ve been sacked for doing my job. I think I’ve been sacked for doing what the law asks of me and I’ve breached, I’ve fallen down over a clause in my employment contract, which I think is a crying shame.” His tenure as the independent borders watchdog was due to end on 21 March and he claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was ultimately fired. “I now know that the Home Office, so the ministers, supported my reappointment, my extension, my reappointment. And the home secretary supported my reappointment. “That reappointment process was sent to the Cabinet Office and that was sent on to No 10 and it was turned down by No 10. So, I’ve no idea why it was turned down by No 10.” No 10’s role emerged as part of a judicial review about the management of Manston migrant processing centre in 2022, he said. As first disclosed in the Guardian , Neal said he was sacked in a video conference call by a senior civil servant. “Worse than that, for my high-performing team of 30 civil servants, the notification that I was sacked was in the media before my team or I had had the chance to speak to them, which is just shocking. Shocking leadership.” Neal, who was responsible for the assurance and inspection of the UK’s detention facilities while in the armed forces, said the advice to his successor when they are eventually appointed would be “don’t press the nuclear button too early”. He added: “There is a role in public life, for sure, for people who speak truth to power.” More than 40 refugee charities including Freedom from Torture and the Refugee Council have written to Cleverly expressing their concern at Neal’s sacking and how it will affect the asylum system. “Vital inspections” into asylum accommodation including the Bibby Stockholm barge and the RAF Wethersfield site , as well as a report into the handling of modern slavery and human trafficking claims, cannot be submitted without an inspector, they said. “Effectively disabling independent scrutiny of a highly controversial policy area constitutes yet another step towards the erosion of government accountability, and follows close behind similar moves to weaken judicial oversight and limit people’s power to protest. Such actions fundamentally undermine our democratic society,” the letter says. Home Office sources have said it could take up to nine months to hire a new inspector at a time when the government hopes to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Home Office James Cleverly news Share Reuse this content The UK’s sacked borders inspector has told MPs he was removed “for doing his job”, as refugee charities told the home secretary that the sacking of David Neal had left the asylum system at risk. Neal, who was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told a parliamentary committee of “shocking leadership” at the top of the Home Office. He also claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was dismissed during a Microsoft Teams video call. In a letter seen by the Guardian, more than 40 refugee charities have told James Cleverly that a failure to appoint a new borders watchdog “creates a vacuum” of independent oversight. Neal was removed amid complaints that the Home Office was delaying the publication of 15 of his inspectorate’s reports. Told of Neal’s criticisms, Cleverly defended the the Home Office. He said: “I made it absolutely clear that David was to be contacted directly. That is what I instructed and that is what happened. “I’ve not had a chance to listen to exactly what he said. I’m not going to try and comment on things that I haven’t heard directly. “It was disappointing the sequence of events that led to me asking him to stand down but we have remained professional throughout this process.” A Home Office statement said Neal was sacked for breaching his contract after speaking to the Daily Mail about concerns over airport security. At a hearing of the home affairs select committee, Neal said he had a duty to speak out, which was in line with his responsibilities as the borders watchdog. “I’ve been sacked for doing my job. I think I’ve been sacked for doing what the law asks of me and I’ve breached, I’ve fallen down over a clause in my employment contract, which I think is a crying shame.” His tenure as the independent borders watchdog was due to end on 21 March and he claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was ultimately fired. “I now know that the Home Office, so the ministers, supported my reappointment, my extension, my reappointment. And the home secretary supported my reappointment. “That reappointment process was sent to the Cabinet Office and that was sent on to No 10 and it was turned down by No 10. So, I’ve no idea why it was turned down by No 10.” No 10’s role emerged as part of a judicial review about the management of Manston migrant processing centre in 2022, he said. As first disclosed in the Guardian , Neal said he was sacked in a video conference call by a senior civil servant. “Worse than that, for my high-performing team of 30 civil servants, the notification that I was sacked was in the media before my team or I had had the chance to speak to them, which is just shocking. Shocking leadership.” Neal, who was responsible for the assurance and inspection of the UK’s detention facilities while in the armed forces, said the advice to his successor when they are eventually appointed would be “don’t press the nuclear button too early”. He added: “There is a role in public life, for sure, for people who speak truth to power.” More than 40 refugee charities including Freedom from Torture and the Refugee Council have written to Cleverly expressing their concern at Neal’s sacking and how it will affect the asylum system. “Vital inspections” into asylum accommodation including the Bibby Stockholm barge and the RAF Wethersfield site , as well as a report into the handling of modern slavery and human trafficking claims, cannot be submitted without an inspector, they said. “Effectively disabling independent scrutiny of a highly controversial policy area constitutes yet another step towards the erosion of government accountability, and follows close behind similar moves to weaken judicial oversight and limit people’s power to protest. Such actions fundamentally undermine our democratic society,” the letter says. Home Office sources have said it could take up to nine months to hire a new inspector at a time when the government hopes to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Home Office James Cleverly news Share Reuse this content The UK’s sacked borders inspector has told MPs he was removed “for doing his job”, as refugee charities told the home secretary that the sacking of David Neal had left the asylum system at risk. Neal, who was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told a parliamentary committee of “shocking leadership” at the top of the Home Office. He also claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was dismissed during a Microsoft Teams video call. In a letter seen by the Guardian, more than 40 refugee charities have told James Cleverly that a failure to appoint a new borders watchdog “creates a vacuum” of independent oversight. Neal was removed amid complaints that the Home Office was delaying the publication of 15 of his inspectorate’s reports. Told of Neal’s criticisms, Cleverly defended the the Home Office. He said: “I made it absolutely clear that David was to be contacted directly. That is what I instructed and that is what happened. “I’ve not had a chance to listen to exactly what he said. I’m not going to try and comment on things that I haven’t heard directly. “It was disappointing the sequence of events that led to me asking him to stand down but we have remained professional throughout this process.” A Home Office statement said Neal was sacked for breaching his contract after speaking to the Daily Mail about concerns over airport security. At a hearing of the home affairs select committee, Neal said he had a duty to speak out, which was in line with his responsibilities as the borders watchdog. “I’ve been sacked for doing my job. I think I’ve been sacked for doing what the law asks of me and I’ve breached, I’ve fallen down over a clause in my employment contract, which I think is a crying shame.” His tenure as the independent borders watchdog was due to end on 21 March and he claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was ultimately fired. “I now know that the Home Office, so the ministers, supported my reappointment, my extension, my reappointment. And the home secretary supported my reappointment. “That reappointment process was sent to the Cabinet Office and that was sent on to No 10 and it was turned down by No 10. So, I’ve no idea why it was turned down by No 10.” No 10’s role emerged as part of a judicial review about the management of Manston migrant processing centre in 2022, he said. As first disclosed in the Guardian , Neal said he was sacked in a video conference call by a senior civil servant. “Worse than that, for my high-performing team of 30 civil servants, the notification that I was sacked was in the media before my team or I had had the chance to speak to them, which is just shocking. Shocking leadership.” Neal, who was responsible for the assurance and inspection of the UK’s detention facilities while in the armed forces, said the advice to his successor when they are eventually appointed would be “don’t press the nuclear button too early”. He added: “There is a role in public life, for sure, for people who speak truth to power.” More than 40 refugee charities including Freedom from Torture and the Refugee Council have written to Cleverly expressing their concern at Neal’s sacking and how it will affect the asylum system. “Vital inspections” into asylum accommodation including the Bibby Stockholm barge and the RAF Wethersfield site , as well as a report into the handling of modern slavery and human trafficking claims, cannot be submitted without an inspector, they said. “Effectively disabling independent scrutiny of a highly controversial policy area constitutes yet another step towards the erosion of government accountability, and follows close behind similar moves to weaken judicial oversight and limit people’s power to protest. Such actions fundamentally undermine our democratic society,” the letter says. Home Office sources have said it could take up to nine months to hire a new inspector at a time when the government hopes to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. The UK’s sacked borders inspector has told MPs he was removed “for doing his job”, as refugee charities told the home secretary that the sacking of David Neal had left the asylum system at risk. Neal, who was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told a parliamentary committee of “shocking leadership” at the top of the Home Office. He also claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was dismissed during a Microsoft Teams video call. In a letter seen by the Guardian, more than 40 refugee charities have told James Cleverly that a failure to appoint a new borders watchdog “creates a vacuum” of independent oversight. Neal was removed amid complaints that the Home Office was delaying the publication of 15 of his inspectorate’s reports. Told of Neal’s criticisms, Cleverly defended the the Home Office. He said: “I made it absolutely clear that David was to be contacted directly. That is what I instructed and that is what happened. “I’ve not had a chance to listen to exactly what he said. I’m not going to try and comment on things that I haven’t heard directly. “It was disappointing the sequence of events that led to me asking him to stand down but we have remained professional throughout this process.” A Home Office statement said Neal was sacked for breaching his contract after speaking to the Daily Mail about concerns over airport security. At a hearing of the home affairs select committee, Neal said he had a duty to speak out, which was in line with his responsibilities as the borders watchdog. “I’ve been sacked for doing my job. I think I’ve been sacked for doing what the law asks of me and I’ve breached, I’ve fallen down over a clause in my employment contract, which I think is a crying shame.” His tenure as the independent borders watchdog was due to end on 21 March and he claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was ultimately fired. “I now know that the Home Office, so the ministers, supported my reappointment, my extension, my reappointment. And the home secretary supported my reappointment. “That reappointment process was sent to the Cabinet Office and that was sent on to No 10 and it was turned down by No 10. So, I’ve no idea why it was turned down by No 10.” No 10’s role emerged as part of a judicial review about the management of Manston migrant processing centre in 2022, he said. As first disclosed in the Guardian , Neal said he was sacked in a video conference call by a senior civil servant. “Worse than that, for my high-performing team of 30 civil servants, the notification that I was sacked was in the media before my team or I had had the chance to speak to them, which is just shocking. Shocking leadership.” Neal, who was responsible for the assurance and inspection of the UK’s detention facilities while in the armed forces, said the advice to his successor when they are eventually appointed would be “don’t press the nuclear button too early”. He added: “There is a role in public life, for sure, for people who speak truth to power.” More than 40 refugee charities including Freedom from Torture and the Refugee Council have written to Cleverly expressing their concern at Neal’s sacking and how it will affect the asylum system. “Vital inspections” into asylum accommodation including the Bibby Stockholm barge and the RAF Wethersfield site , as well as a report into the handling of modern slavery and human trafficking claims, cannot be submitted without an inspector, they said. “Effectively disabling independent scrutiny of a highly controversial policy area constitutes yet another step towards the erosion of government accountability, and follows close behind similar moves to weaken judicial oversight and limit people’s power to protest. Such actions fundamentally undermine our democratic society,” the letter says. Home Office sources have said it could take up to nine months to hire a new inspector at a time when the government hopes to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. The UK’s sacked borders inspector has told MPs he was removed “for doing his job”, as refugee charities told the home secretary that the sacking of David Neal had left the asylum system at risk. Neal, who was fired last week as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, told a parliamentary committee of “shocking leadership” at the top of the Home Office. He also claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was dismissed during a Microsoft Teams video call. In a letter seen by the Guardian, more than 40 refugee charities have told James Cleverly that a failure to appoint a new borders watchdog “creates a vacuum” of independent oversight. Neal was removed amid complaints that the Home Office was delaying the publication of 15 of his inspectorate’s reports. Told of Neal’s criticisms, Cleverly defended the the Home Office. He said: “I made it absolutely clear that David was to be contacted directly. That is what I instructed and that is what happened. “I’ve not had a chance to listen to exactly what he said. I’m not going to try and comment on things that I haven’t heard directly. “It was disappointing the sequence of events that led to me asking him to stand down but we have remained professional throughout this process.” A Home Office statement said Neal was sacked for breaching his contract after speaking to the Daily Mail about concerns over airport security. At a hearing of the home affairs select committee, Neal said he had a duty to speak out, which was in line with his responsibilities as the borders watchdog. “I’ve been sacked for doing my job. I think I’ve been sacked for doing what the law asks of me and I’ve breached, I’ve fallen down over a clause in my employment contract, which I think is a crying shame.” His tenure as the independent borders watchdog was due to end on 21 March and he claimed No 10 had blocked his reappointment before he was ultimately fired. “I now know that the Home Office, so the ministers, supported my reappointment, my extension, my reappointment. And the home secretary supported my reappointment. “That reappointment process was sent to the Cabinet Office and that was sent on to No 10 and it was turned down by No 10. So, I’ve no idea why it was turned down by No 10.” No 10’s role emerged as part of a judicial review about the management of Manston migrant processing centre in 2022, he said. As first disclosed in the Guardian , Neal said he was sacked in a video conference call by a senior civil servant. “Worse than that, for my high-performing team of 30 civil servants, the notification that I was sacked was in the media before my team or I had had the chance to speak to them, which is just shocking. Shocking leadership.” Neal, who was responsible for the assurance and inspection of the UK’s detention facilities while in the armed forces, said the advice to his successor when they are eventually appointed would be “don’t press the nuclear button too early”. He added: “There is a role in public life, for sure, for people who speak truth to power.” More than 40 refugee charities including Freedom from Torture and the Refugee Council have written to Cleverly expressing their concern at Neal’s sacking and how it will affect the asylum system. “Vital inspections” into asylum accommodation including the Bibby Stockholm barge and the RAF Wethersfield site , as well as a report into the handling of modern slavery and human trafficking claims, cannot be submitted without an inspector, they said. “Effectively disabling independent scrutiny of a highly controversial policy area constitutes yet another step towards the erosion of government accountability, and follows close behind similar moves to weaken judicial oversight and limit people’s power to protest. Such actions fundamentally undermine our democratic society,” the letter says. Home Office sources have said it could take up to nine months to hire a new inspector at a time when the government hopes to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Home Office James Cleverly news Share Reuse this content Immigration and asylum Home Office James Cleverly news |
European parliament votes for watered-down law to restore nature
Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old European parliament votes for watered-down law to restore nature This article is more than 1 year old EU target aims to restore at least 20% of land and sea ecosystems by 2030 despite farmers’ protests and rightwing opposition The European parliament has given the green light to a watered-down law to restore nature, after weeks of fierce protests from farmers and a last-ditch attempt from rightwing parties threatened to sink the deal. “Today is an important day for Europe as we move from protecting and conserving nature to restoring it,” said César Luena, a Spanish MEP from the centre-left Socialist and Democrats, who led negotiations on the proposal. The new law – a key pillar of the EU’s contested green deal – sets a target for the EU to restore at least 20% of its land and sea by the end of the decade. By 2050, that should rise to cover all ecosystems in need of restoration. “This law is not about restoring nature for the sake of nature,” said the EU environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevičius. “It is about ensuring a habitable environment where the wellbeing of current and future generations is ensured.” The centre-right European People’s party (EPP), the biggest group in the parliament, joined far-right lawmakers in voting against the law on Tuesday. It argued that its rules placed too big a burden on farmers but welcomed that the text, which it pushed to weaken last year, “bears little resemblance” to the original proposal. “We do not want new and more forms of bureaucracy and reporting obligations for farmers,” said Siegfried Mureșan, a Romanian MEP from the EPP, before the vote. “Let farmers farm.” The EU and its member states have rowed back on several plans to protect the environment as farmers’ protests have spread across the continent and in some cases turned violent. In a clash with riot police on Monday , farmers set fire to tyres, sprayed police with liquid manure, and drove tractors through blockades in the European quarter of Brussels where agriculture ministers were meeting. 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video The nature restoration law, which must be approved by the EU Council before it comes into force, calls on member states to restore at least 30% of drained peatland by 2030 and make progress on indicators of agriculture biodiversity that include increasing the number of grassland butterflies and farmland birds. Environmental groups praised the outcome of the vote, which passed with the support of 329 lawmakers and was opposed by 275. A coalition made up of BirdLife Europe, ClientEarth, European Environment Bureau and WWF EU said: “We are relieved that MEPs listened to facts and science, and did not give in to populism and fear-mongering. Now, we urge member states to follow suit and deliver this much-needed law to bring back nature in Europe.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Nature is dying faster than humans have ever observed, according to a review of the research from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( Ipbes ). In Europe, where 81% of habitats are in poor shape, the destruction of wildlife is set to cost farms and ecosystems as pollinators die out, soils degrade and extreme weather grows more violent. The nature restoration law was subject to an intense and negative media campaign before a key vote last year. In an open letter, 6,000 scientists criticised opponents of the law for spreading misinformation. Since then, farmers have loudly protested against a range of policies to protect wildlife and cut pollution, which they say they cannot afford, as well as opposing trade deals with South America and grain imports from Ukraine. Luena said: “I would like to thank scientists for providing the scientific evidence and fighting climate denial, and young people for reminding us that there is no planet B, nor plan B.” Explore more on these topics European Union Farming Biodiversity Europe Conservation Wildlife news Share Reuse this content Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old European parliament votes for watered-down law to restore nature This article is more than 1 year old EU target aims to restore at least 20% of land and sea ecosystems by 2030 despite farmers’ protests and rightwing opposition The European parliament has given the green light to a watered-down law to restore nature, after weeks of fierce protests from farmers and a last-ditch attempt from rightwing parties threatened to sink the deal. “Today is an important day for Europe as we move from protecting and conserving nature to restoring it,” said César Luena, a Spanish MEP from the centre-left Socialist and Democrats, who led negotiations on the proposal. The new law – a key pillar of the EU’s contested green deal – sets a target for the EU to restore at least 20% of its land and sea by the end of the decade. By 2050, that should rise to cover all ecosystems in need of restoration. “This law is not about restoring nature for the sake of nature,” said the EU environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevičius. “It is about ensuring a habitable environment where the wellbeing of current and future generations is ensured.” The centre-right European People’s party (EPP), the biggest group in the parliament, joined far-right lawmakers in voting against the law on Tuesday. It argued that its rules placed too big a burden on farmers but welcomed that the text, which it pushed to weaken last year, “bears little resemblance” to the original proposal. “We do not want new and more forms of bureaucracy and reporting obligations for farmers,” said Siegfried Mureșan, a Romanian MEP from the EPP, before the vote. “Let farmers farm.” The EU and its member states have rowed back on several plans to protect the environment as farmers’ protests have spread across the continent and in some cases turned violent. In a clash with riot police on Monday , farmers set fire to tyres, sprayed police with liquid manure, and drove tractors through blockades in the European quarter of Brussels where agriculture ministers were meeting. 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video The nature restoration law, which must be approved by the EU Council before it comes into force, calls on member states to restore at least 30% of drained peatland by 2030 and make progress on indicators of agriculture biodiversity that include increasing the number of grassland butterflies and farmland birds. Environmental groups praised the outcome of the vote, which passed with the support of 329 lawmakers and was opposed by 275. A coalition made up of BirdLife Europe, ClientEarth, European Environment Bureau and WWF EU said: “We are relieved that MEPs listened to facts and science, and did not give in to populism and fear-mongering. Now, we urge member states to follow suit and deliver this much-needed law to bring back nature in Europe.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Nature is dying faster than humans have ever observed, according to a review of the research from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( Ipbes ). In Europe, where 81% of habitats are in poor shape, the destruction of wildlife is set to cost farms and ecosystems as pollinators die out, soils degrade and extreme weather grows more violent. The nature restoration law was subject to an intense and negative media campaign before a key vote last year. In an open letter, 6,000 scientists criticised opponents of the law for spreading misinformation. Since then, farmers have loudly protested against a range of policies to protect wildlife and cut pollution, which they say they cannot afford, as well as opposing trade deals with South America and grain imports from Ukraine. Luena said: “I would like to thank scientists for providing the scientific evidence and fighting climate denial, and young people for reminding us that there is no planet B, nor plan B.” Explore more on these topics European Union Farming Biodiversity Europe Conservation Wildlife news Share Reuse this content Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Farmers burned tyres on Monday in a protest in the heart of the EU district in Brussels. Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old European parliament votes for watered-down law to restore nature This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old European parliament votes for watered-down law to restore nature This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old European parliament votes for watered-down law to restore nature This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old EU target aims to restore at least 20% of land and sea ecosystems by 2030 despite farmers’ protests and rightwing opposition EU target aims to restore at least 20% of land and sea ecosystems by 2030 despite farmers’ protests and rightwing opposition EU target aims to restore at least 20% of land and sea ecosystems by 2030 despite farmers’ protests and rightwing opposition The European parliament has given the green light to a watered-down law to restore nature, after weeks of fierce protests from farmers and a last-ditch attempt from rightwing parties threatened to sink the deal. “Today is an important day for Europe as we move from protecting and conserving nature to restoring it,” said César Luena, a Spanish MEP from the centre-left Socialist and Democrats, who led negotiations on the proposal. The new law – a key pillar of the EU’s contested green deal – sets a target for the EU to restore at least 20% of its land and sea by the end of the decade. By 2050, that should rise to cover all ecosystems in need of restoration. “This law is not about restoring nature for the sake of nature,” said the EU environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevičius. “It is about ensuring a habitable environment where the wellbeing of current and future generations is ensured.” The centre-right European People’s party (EPP), the biggest group in the parliament, joined far-right lawmakers in voting against the law on Tuesday. It argued that its rules placed too big a burden on farmers but welcomed that the text, which it pushed to weaken last year, “bears little resemblance” to the original proposal. “We do not want new and more forms of bureaucracy and reporting obligations for farmers,” said Siegfried Mureșan, a Romanian MEP from the EPP, before the vote. “Let farmers farm.” The EU and its member states have rowed back on several plans to protect the environment as farmers’ protests have spread across the continent and in some cases turned violent. In a clash with riot police on Monday , farmers set fire to tyres, sprayed police with liquid manure, and drove tractors through blockades in the European quarter of Brussels where agriculture ministers were meeting. 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video The nature restoration law, which must be approved by the EU Council before it comes into force, calls on member states to restore at least 30% of drained peatland by 2030 and make progress on indicators of agriculture biodiversity that include increasing the number of grassland butterflies and farmland birds. Environmental groups praised the outcome of the vote, which passed with the support of 329 lawmakers and was opposed by 275. A coalition made up of BirdLife Europe, ClientEarth, European Environment Bureau and WWF EU said: “We are relieved that MEPs listened to facts and science, and did not give in to populism and fear-mongering. Now, we urge member states to follow suit and deliver this much-needed law to bring back nature in Europe.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Nature is dying faster than humans have ever observed, according to a review of the research from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( Ipbes ). In Europe, where 81% of habitats are in poor shape, the destruction of wildlife is set to cost farms and ecosystems as pollinators die out, soils degrade and extreme weather grows more violent. The nature restoration law was subject to an intense and negative media campaign before a key vote last year. In an open letter, 6,000 scientists criticised opponents of the law for spreading misinformation. Since then, farmers have loudly protested against a range of policies to protect wildlife and cut pollution, which they say they cannot afford, as well as opposing trade deals with South America and grain imports from Ukraine. Luena said: “I would like to thank scientists for providing the scientific evidence and fighting climate denial, and young people for reminding us that there is no planet B, nor plan B.” Explore more on these topics European Union Farming Biodiversity Europe Conservation Wildlife news Share Reuse this content The European parliament has given the green light to a watered-down law to restore nature, after weeks of fierce protests from farmers and a last-ditch attempt from rightwing parties threatened to sink the deal. “Today is an important day for Europe as we move from protecting and conserving nature to restoring it,” said César Luena, a Spanish MEP from the centre-left Socialist and Democrats, who led negotiations on the proposal. The new law – a key pillar of the EU’s contested green deal – sets a target for the EU to restore at least 20% of its land and sea by the end of the decade. By 2050, that should rise to cover all ecosystems in need of restoration. “This law is not about restoring nature for the sake of nature,” said the EU environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevičius. “It is about ensuring a habitable environment where the wellbeing of current and future generations is ensured.” The centre-right European People’s party (EPP), the biggest group in the parliament, joined far-right lawmakers in voting against the law on Tuesday. It argued that its rules placed too big a burden on farmers but welcomed that the text, which it pushed to weaken last year, “bears little resemblance” to the original proposal. “We do not want new and more forms of bureaucracy and reporting obligations for farmers,” said Siegfried Mureșan, a Romanian MEP from the EPP, before the vote. “Let farmers farm.” The EU and its member states have rowed back on several plans to protect the environment as farmers’ protests have spread across the continent and in some cases turned violent. In a clash with riot police on Monday , farmers set fire to tyres, sprayed police with liquid manure, and drove tractors through blockades in the European quarter of Brussels where agriculture ministers were meeting. 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video The nature restoration law, which must be approved by the EU Council before it comes into force, calls on member states to restore at least 30% of drained peatland by 2030 and make progress on indicators of agriculture biodiversity that include increasing the number of grassland butterflies and farmland birds. Environmental groups praised the outcome of the vote, which passed with the support of 329 lawmakers and was opposed by 275. A coalition made up of BirdLife Europe, ClientEarth, European Environment Bureau and WWF EU said: “We are relieved that MEPs listened to facts and science, and did not give in to populism and fear-mongering. Now, we urge member states to follow suit and deliver this much-needed law to bring back nature in Europe.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Nature is dying faster than humans have ever observed, according to a review of the research from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( Ipbes ). In Europe, where 81% of habitats are in poor shape, the destruction of wildlife is set to cost farms and ecosystems as pollinators die out, soils degrade and extreme weather grows more violent. The nature restoration law was subject to an intense and negative media campaign before a key vote last year. In an open letter, 6,000 scientists criticised opponents of the law for spreading misinformation. Since then, farmers have loudly protested against a range of policies to protect wildlife and cut pollution, which they say they cannot afford, as well as opposing trade deals with South America and grain imports from Ukraine. Luena said: “I would like to thank scientists for providing the scientific evidence and fighting climate denial, and young people for reminding us that there is no planet B, nor plan B.” Explore more on these topics European Union Farming Biodiversity Europe Conservation Wildlife news Share Reuse this content The European parliament has given the green light to a watered-down law to restore nature, after weeks of fierce protests from farmers and a last-ditch attempt from rightwing parties threatened to sink the deal. “Today is an important day for Europe as we move from protecting and conserving nature to restoring it,” said César Luena, a Spanish MEP from the centre-left Socialist and Democrats, who led negotiations on the proposal. The new law – a key pillar of the EU’s contested green deal – sets a target for the EU to restore at least 20% of its land and sea by the end of the decade. By 2050, that should rise to cover all ecosystems in need of restoration. “This law is not about restoring nature for the sake of nature,” said the EU environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevičius. “It is about ensuring a habitable environment where the wellbeing of current and future generations is ensured.” The centre-right European People’s party (EPP), the biggest group in the parliament, joined far-right lawmakers in voting against the law on Tuesday. It argued that its rules placed too big a burden on farmers but welcomed that the text, which it pushed to weaken last year, “bears little resemblance” to the original proposal. “We do not want new and more forms of bureaucracy and reporting obligations for farmers,” said Siegfried Mureșan, a Romanian MEP from the EPP, before the vote. “Let farmers farm.” The EU and its member states have rowed back on several plans to protect the environment as farmers’ protests have spread across the continent and in some cases turned violent. In a clash with riot police on Monday , farmers set fire to tyres, sprayed police with liquid manure, and drove tractors through blockades in the European quarter of Brussels where agriculture ministers were meeting. 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video The nature restoration law, which must be approved by the EU Council before it comes into force, calls on member states to restore at least 30% of drained peatland by 2030 and make progress on indicators of agriculture biodiversity that include increasing the number of grassland butterflies and farmland birds. Environmental groups praised the outcome of the vote, which passed with the support of 329 lawmakers and was opposed by 275. A coalition made up of BirdLife Europe, ClientEarth, European Environment Bureau and WWF EU said: “We are relieved that MEPs listened to facts and science, and did not give in to populism and fear-mongering. Now, we urge member states to follow suit and deliver this much-needed law to bring back nature in Europe.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Nature is dying faster than humans have ever observed, according to a review of the research from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( Ipbes ). In Europe, where 81% of habitats are in poor shape, the destruction of wildlife is set to cost farms and ecosystems as pollinators die out, soils degrade and extreme weather grows more violent. The nature restoration law was subject to an intense and negative media campaign before a key vote last year. In an open letter, 6,000 scientists criticised opponents of the law for spreading misinformation. Since then, farmers have loudly protested against a range of policies to protect wildlife and cut pollution, which they say they cannot afford, as well as opposing trade deals with South America and grain imports from Ukraine. Luena said: “I would like to thank scientists for providing the scientific evidence and fighting climate denial, and young people for reminding us that there is no planet B, nor plan B.” The European parliament has given the green light to a watered-down law to restore nature, after weeks of fierce protests from farmers and a last-ditch attempt from rightwing parties threatened to sink the deal. “Today is an important day for Europe as we move from protecting and conserving nature to restoring it,” said César Luena, a Spanish MEP from the centre-left Socialist and Democrats, who led negotiations on the proposal. The new law – a key pillar of the EU’s contested green deal – sets a target for the EU to restore at least 20% of its land and sea by the end of the decade. By 2050, that should rise to cover all ecosystems in need of restoration. “This law is not about restoring nature for the sake of nature,” said the EU environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevičius. “It is about ensuring a habitable environment where the wellbeing of current and future generations is ensured.” The centre-right European People’s party (EPP), the biggest group in the parliament, joined far-right lawmakers in voting against the law on Tuesday. It argued that its rules placed too big a burden on farmers but welcomed that the text, which it pushed to weaken last year, “bears little resemblance” to the original proposal. “We do not want new and more forms of bureaucracy and reporting obligations for farmers,” said Siegfried Mureșan, a Romanian MEP from the EPP, before the vote. “Let farmers farm.” The EU and its member states have rowed back on several plans to protect the environment as farmers’ protests have spread across the continent and in some cases turned violent. In a clash with riot police on Monday , farmers set fire to tyres, sprayed police with liquid manure, and drove tractors through blockades in the European quarter of Brussels where agriculture ministers were meeting. 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video The nature restoration law, which must be approved by the EU Council before it comes into force, calls on member states to restore at least 30% of drained peatland by 2030 and make progress on indicators of agriculture biodiversity that include increasing the number of grassland butterflies and farmland birds. Environmental groups praised the outcome of the vote, which passed with the support of 329 lawmakers and was opposed by 275. A coalition made up of BirdLife Europe, ClientEarth, European Environment Bureau and WWF EU said: “We are relieved that MEPs listened to facts and science, and did not give in to populism and fear-mongering. Now, we urge member states to follow suit and deliver this much-needed law to bring back nature in Europe.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Nature is dying faster than humans have ever observed, according to a review of the research from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( Ipbes ). In Europe, where 81% of habitats are in poor shape, the destruction of wildlife is set to cost farms and ecosystems as pollinators die out, soils degrade and extreme weather grows more violent. The nature restoration law was subject to an intense and negative media campaign before a key vote last year. In an open letter, 6,000 scientists criticised opponents of the law for spreading misinformation. Since then, farmers have loudly protested against a range of policies to protect wildlife and cut pollution, which they say they cannot afford, as well as opposing trade deals with South America and grain imports from Ukraine. Luena said: “I would like to thank scientists for providing the scientific evidence and fighting climate denial, and young people for reminding us that there is no planet B, nor plan B.” The European parliament has given the green light to a watered-down law to restore nature, after weeks of fierce protests from farmers and a last-ditch attempt from rightwing parties threatened to sink the deal. “Today is an important day for Europe as we move from protecting and conserving nature to restoring it,” said César Luena, a Spanish MEP from the centre-left Socialist and Democrats, who led negotiations on the proposal. The new law – a key pillar of the EU’s contested green deal – sets a target for the EU to restore at least 20% of its land and sea by the end of the decade. By 2050, that should rise to cover all ecosystems in need of restoration. “This law is not about restoring nature for the sake of nature,” said the EU environment commissioner, Virginijus Sinkevičius. “It is about ensuring a habitable environment where the wellbeing of current and future generations is ensured.” The centre-right European People’s party (EPP), the biggest group in the parliament, joined far-right lawmakers in voting against the law on Tuesday. It argued that its rules placed too big a burden on farmers but welcomed that the text, which it pushed to weaken last year, “bears little resemblance” to the original proposal. “We do not want new and more forms of bureaucracy and reporting obligations for farmers,” said Siegfried Mureșan, a Romanian MEP from the EPP, before the vote. “Let farmers farm.” The EU and its member states have rowed back on several plans to protect the environment as farmers’ protests have spread across the continent and in some cases turned violent. In a clash with riot police on Monday , farmers set fire to tyres, sprayed police with liquid manure, and drove tractors through blockades in the European quarter of Brussels where agriculture ministers were meeting. 1:02 Farmers set fire to tyres in Brussels as EU officials meet to address concerns – video The nature restoration law, which must be approved by the EU Council before it comes into force, calls on member states to restore at least 30% of drained peatland by 2030 and make progress on indicators of agriculture biodiversity that include increasing the number of grassland butterflies and farmland birds. Environmental groups praised the outcome of the vote, which passed with the support of 329 lawmakers and was opposed by 275. A coalition made up of BirdLife Europe, ClientEarth, European Environment Bureau and WWF EU said: “We are relieved that MEPs listened to facts and science, and did not give in to populism and fear-mongering. Now, we urge member states to follow suit and deliver this much-needed law to bring back nature in Europe.” Nature is dying faster than humans have ever observed, according to a review of the research from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( Ipbes ). In Europe, where 81% of habitats are in poor shape, the destruction of wildlife is set to cost farms and ecosystems as pollinators die out, soils degrade and extreme weather grows more violent. The nature restoration law was subject to an intense and negative media campaign before a key vote last year. In an open letter, 6,000 scientists criticised opponents of the law for spreading misinformation. Since then, farmers have loudly protested against a range of policies to protect wildlife and cut pollution, which they say they cannot afford, as well as opposing trade deals with South America and grain imports from Ukraine. Luena said: “I would like to thank scientists for providing the scientific evidence and fighting climate denial, and young people for reminding us that there is no planet B, nor plan B.” Explore more on these topics European Union Farming Biodiversity Europe Conservation Wildlife news Share Reuse this content European Union Farming Biodiversity Europe Conservation Wildlife news |
The Conservative party’s problem with Islamophobia
This article is more than 1 year old The Conservative party’s problem with Islamophobia This article is more than 1 year old 00:00:00 00:00:00 Tory deputy chair Lee Anderson was suspended from the party after suggesting London’s mayor Sadiq Khan was being controlled by Islamists. But why can’t the party call his comments Islamophobic? Archie Bland reports Lee Anderson is no stranger to controversy. While deputy chair of the Conservative party he earned the nickname “30p Lee” after chastising food bank users for not budgeting well enough and claiming that meals could be made for 30 pence each. He’s called for the reinstatement of the death penalty and told the Daily Express that if asylum seekers didn’t like their treatment they could “fuck off back to France”. So when he popped up on the right-wing GB News channel last week, it was no surprise to anyone that he weighed into the debate about the pro-Palestinian protests in his usual style. But this time he found himself at the centre of a political storm that didn’t blow over. He claimed that “Islamists” had “got control” over London mayor Sadiq Khan. As Archie Bland tells Nosheen Iqbal , his refusal to apologise saw him suspended from the parliamentary party. But when senior Tory colleagues were pressed on exactly why he had been suspended, none would say that Lee’s comments were Islamophobic. It was this prevarication that both intensified the row and led to Muslim party members such as former MEP Sajaad Karim voicing serious doubts about the direction the party is heading. He explains what it has felt like to be a card-carrying Muslim Tory member for the past week – and why that membership card has now gone in the bin. Photograph: Jacob King/AP Explore more on these topics Conservatives Today in Focus Islamophobia Religion Race Rishi Sunak Lee Anderson This article is more than 1 year old The Conservative party’s problem with Islamophobia This article is more than 1 year old 00:00:00 00:00:00 Tory deputy chair Lee Anderson was suspended from the party after suggesting London’s mayor Sadiq Khan was being controlled by Islamists. But why can’t the party call his comments Islamophobic? Archie Bland reports Lee Anderson is no stranger to controversy. While deputy chair of the Conservative party he earned the nickname “30p Lee” after chastising food bank users for not budgeting well enough and claiming that meals could be made for 30 pence each. He’s called for the reinstatement of the death penalty and told the Daily Express that if asylum seekers didn’t like their treatment they could “fuck off back to France”. So when he popped up on the right-wing GB News channel last week, it was no surprise to anyone that he weighed into the debate about the pro-Palestinian protests in his usual style. But this time he found himself at the centre of a political storm that didn’t blow over. He claimed that “Islamists” had “got control” over London mayor Sadiq Khan. As Archie Bland tells Nosheen Iqbal , his refusal to apologise saw him suspended from the parliamentary party. But when senior Tory colleagues were pressed on exactly why he had been suspended, none would say that Lee’s comments were Islamophobic. It was this prevarication that both intensified the row and led to Muslim party members such as former MEP Sajaad Karim voicing serious doubts about the direction the party is heading. He explains what it has felt like to be a card-carrying Muslim Tory member for the past week – and why that membership card has now gone in the bin. Photograph: Jacob King/AP Explore more on these topics Conservatives Today in Focus Islamophobia Religion Race Rishi Sunak Lee Anderson This article is more than 1 year old The Conservative party’s problem with Islamophobia This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The Conservative party’s problem with Islamophobia This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The Conservative party’s problem with Islamophobia This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tory deputy chair Lee Anderson was suspended from the party after suggesting London’s mayor Sadiq Khan was being controlled by Islamists. But why can’t the party call his comments Islamophobic? Archie Bland reports Tory deputy chair Lee Anderson was suspended from the party after suggesting London’s mayor Sadiq Khan was being controlled by Islamists. But why can’t the party call his comments Islamophobic? Archie Bland reports Tory deputy chair Lee Anderson was suspended from the party after suggesting London’s mayor Sadiq Khan was being controlled by Islamists. But why can’t the party call his comments Islamophobic? Archie Bland reports Lee Anderson is no stranger to controversy. While deputy chair of the Conservative party he earned the nickname “30p Lee” after chastising food bank users for not budgeting well enough and claiming that meals could be made for 30 pence each. He’s called for the reinstatement of the death penalty and told the Daily Express that if asylum seekers didn’t like their treatment they could “fuck off back to France”. So when he popped up on the right-wing GB News channel last week, it was no surprise to anyone that he weighed into the debate about the pro-Palestinian protests in his usual style. But this time he found himself at the centre of a political storm that didn’t blow over. He claimed that “Islamists” had “got control” over London mayor Sadiq Khan. As Archie Bland tells Nosheen Iqbal , his refusal to apologise saw him suspended from the parliamentary party. But when senior Tory colleagues were pressed on exactly why he had been suspended, none would say that Lee’s comments were Islamophobic. It was this prevarication that both intensified the row and led to Muslim party members such as former MEP Sajaad Karim voicing serious doubts about the direction the party is heading. He explains what it has felt like to be a card-carrying Muslim Tory member for the past week – and why that membership card has now gone in the bin. Photograph: Jacob King/AP Explore more on these topics Conservatives Today in Focus Islamophobia Religion Race Rishi Sunak Lee Anderson Lee Anderson is no stranger to controversy. While deputy chair of the Conservative party he earned the nickname “30p Lee” after chastising food bank users for not budgeting well enough and claiming that meals could be made for 30 pence each. He’s called for the reinstatement of the death penalty and told the Daily Express that if asylum seekers didn’t like their treatment they could “fuck off back to France”. So when he popped up on the right-wing GB News channel last week, it was no surprise to anyone that he weighed into the debate about the pro-Palestinian protests in his usual style. But this time he found himself at the centre of a political storm that didn’t blow over. He claimed that “Islamists” had “got control” over London mayor Sadiq Khan. As Archie Bland tells Nosheen Iqbal , his refusal to apologise saw him suspended from the parliamentary party. But when senior Tory colleagues were pressed on exactly why he had been suspended, none would say that Lee’s comments were Islamophobic. It was this prevarication that both intensified the row and led to Muslim party members such as former MEP Sajaad Karim voicing serious doubts about the direction the party is heading. He explains what it has felt like to be a card-carrying Muslim Tory member for the past week – and why that membership card has now gone in the bin. Photograph: Jacob King/AP Explore more on these topics Conservatives Today in Focus Islamophobia Religion Race Rishi Sunak Lee Anderson Lee Anderson is no stranger to controversy. While deputy chair of the Conservative party he earned the nickname “30p Lee” after chastising food bank users for not budgeting well enough and claiming that meals could be made for 30 pence each. He’s called for the reinstatement of the death penalty and told the Daily Express that if asylum seekers didn’t like their treatment they could “fuck off back to France”. So when he popped up on the right-wing GB News channel last week, it was no surprise to anyone that he weighed into the debate about the pro-Palestinian protests in his usual style. But this time he found himself at the centre of a political storm that didn’t blow over. He claimed that “Islamists” had “got control” over London mayor Sadiq Khan. As Archie Bland tells Nosheen Iqbal , his refusal to apologise saw him suspended from the parliamentary party. But when senior Tory colleagues were pressed on exactly why he had been suspended, none would say that Lee’s comments were Islamophobic. It was this prevarication that both intensified the row and led to Muslim party members such as former MEP Sajaad Karim voicing serious doubts about the direction the party is heading. He explains what it has felt like to be a card-carrying Muslim Tory member for the past week – and why that membership card has now gone in the bin. Photograph: Jacob King/AP Lee Anderson is no stranger to controversy. While deputy chair of the Conservative party he earned the nickname “30p Lee” after chastising food bank users for not budgeting well enough and claiming that meals could be made for 30 pence each. He’s called for the reinstatement of the death penalty and told the Daily Express that if asylum seekers didn’t like their treatment they could “fuck off back to France”. So when he popped up on the right-wing GB News channel last week, it was no surprise to anyone that he weighed into the debate about the pro-Palestinian protests in his usual style. But this time he found himself at the centre of a political storm that didn’t blow over. He claimed that “Islamists” had “got control” over London mayor Sadiq Khan. As Archie Bland tells Nosheen Iqbal , his refusal to apologise saw him suspended from the parliamentary party. But when senior Tory colleagues were pressed on exactly why he had been suspended, none would say that Lee’s comments were Islamophobic. It was this prevarication that both intensified the row and led to Muslim party members such as former MEP Sajaad Karim voicing serious doubts about the direction the party is heading. He explains what it has felt like to be a card-carrying Muslim Tory member for the past week – and why that membership card has now gone in the bin. Photograph: Jacob King/AP Lee Anderson is no stranger to controversy. While deputy chair of the Conservative party he earned the nickname “30p Lee” after chastising food bank users for not budgeting well enough and claiming that meals could be made for 30 pence each. He’s called for the reinstatement of the death penalty and told the Daily Express that if asylum seekers didn’t like their treatment they could “fuck off back to France”. So when he popped up on the right-wing GB News channel last week, it was no surprise to anyone that he weighed into the debate about the pro-Palestinian protests in his usual style. But this time he found himself at the centre of a political storm that didn’t blow over. He claimed that “Islamists” had “got control” over London mayor Sadiq Khan. As Archie Bland tells Nosheen Iqbal , his refusal to apologise saw him suspended from the parliamentary party. But when senior Tory colleagues were pressed on exactly why he had been suspended, none would say that Lee’s comments were Islamophobic. It was this prevarication that both intensified the row and led to Muslim party members such as former MEP Sajaad Karim voicing serious doubts about the direction the party is heading. He explains what it has felt like to be a card-carrying Muslim Tory member for the past week – and why that membership card has now gone in the bin. Explore more on these topics Conservatives Today in Focus Islamophobia Religion Race Rishi Sunak Lee Anderson Conservatives Today in Focus Islamophobia Religion Race Rishi Sunak Lee Anderson |
Farmers stage mass protest outside Welsh parliament over climate policies
Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Farmers stage mass protest outside Welsh parliament over climate policies This article is more than 1 year old Thousands take part in demonstration as concerns grow that groups denying climate crisis are seeking to exploit campaign Thousands of farmers have staged a demonstration on the steps of the Welsh parliament to protest against climate policies that they say will wreck their industry. Flanked by Welsh Tory and Plaid Cymru politicians, farmers gave emotional accounts of trying to keep businesses going and accused the Labour-run government of betraying communities that produce the country’s food. However, concerns are growing that groups who deny there is a climate emergency, as well as campaigners against net zero plans, are trying to exploit the farmers’ campaign. Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Read more Agricultural workers gathered as the Senedd prepared to debate highly contentious issues including the government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS), its post-Brexit proposal for funding the sector, which includes requiring farmers to plant trees on 10% of their land to help tackle the climate crisis. Also under debate were the problem of bovine TB and strict measures to stop rivers from being polluted by farming practices. A large policing operation was in place amid worries that farmers driving tractors might block roads around the Welsh capital. Though dozens of people did arrive in farm vehicles, they obeyed instructions to park a few hundred metres from the Senedd rather than attempting to reach the slate steps. Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Speakers from the Welsh farmers’ union NFU Cymru said the SFS would cost more than 5,000 jobs and that the turnout showed the Welsh dragon was “truly awake” and ready to fight back. However, one leader, Abi Reader, was booed when she said farmers could help the country meet net zero commitments in addition to producing nutritious, affordable food. View image in fullscreen Farmers outside the Senedd on Wednesday. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, a farmer in Carmarthenshire, south-west Wales , said that as well as producing food, farming preserved Welsh culture and language. “There can be no food on the table if there are no farmers,” he said. The most emotional speech was given by Stuart Williams, who described the silence on his Pembrokeshire farm after he lost his whole herd of cows to bovine TB. “As a fourth-generation dairy farmer, it’s in our blood. It isn’t a job; it’s a lifestyle,” he said. “We, as farmers, deserve better.” At the front of the crowd was Louise Hughes, the wife of a shepherd near Dolgellau in north-west Wales. She said: “A more pressing thing than climate change is Mr Putin. We’re teetering on the edge of world war three. This is about food security. We should be self-sufficient.” Caroline Morgan, an organic dairy farmer from south Wales, said: “The Welsh government is not listening. They just want rural Wales to be a big carbon sequester. They don’t understand.” Hettie Sheehan, who was carrying a Ukip placard, said she did not believe there was a climate emergency. “Ukip is the only party into no net zero and supports the farmers,” she said. View image in fullscreen The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, who is a farmer in Carmarthenshire, was one of the speakers at the event. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Yellow placards, sweatshirts and even bucket hats emblazoned with the slogan “No Farmers, No Food” (NFNF) could be seen all around. The slogan and tractor logo are attached to a campaign run by an anti-net zero group. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The NFNF manifesto calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the World Economic Forum to make farmers give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The campaign is run by James Melville, a GB News pundit who runs media for the Together Declaration, which also campaigns against climate measures. What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot Read more Farming contributes to about a tenth of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and almost half of the UK’s methane emissions. Livestock farming is the main factor, but industrial agricultural methods have have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. Geraint Davies, who farms in north Wales and manages his land for nature, said he had some problems with the implementation of the Welsh government’s proposed SFS but that groups such as NFNF were hijacking these valid concerns. Anna McMorrin, the MP for Cardiff North, raised the issue in the UK parliament, asking Rishi Sunak at prime minister’s questions: “The prime minister posed for photographs with a group that shares extremist conspiracy theories on climate change and campaigns against net zero. Does the prime minister share their views?” Sunak responded: “That is no way to talk about the Welsh farming community.” No Welsh ministers met the farmers. A Welsh government spokesperson said: “We have had a seven-year conversation with farmers to design future farming support and we are committed to continuing to work with farmers to develop the sustainable farming scheme.” Explore more on these topics Wales Farming Welsh politics Plaid Cymru Protest Rural affairs Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Farmers stage mass protest outside Welsh parliament over climate policies This article is more than 1 year old Thousands take part in demonstration as concerns grow that groups denying climate crisis are seeking to exploit campaign Thousands of farmers have staged a demonstration on the steps of the Welsh parliament to protest against climate policies that they say will wreck their industry. Flanked by Welsh Tory and Plaid Cymru politicians, farmers gave emotional accounts of trying to keep businesses going and accused the Labour-run government of betraying communities that produce the country’s food. However, concerns are growing that groups who deny there is a climate emergency, as well as campaigners against net zero plans, are trying to exploit the farmers’ campaign. Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Read more Agricultural workers gathered as the Senedd prepared to debate highly contentious issues including the government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS), its post-Brexit proposal for funding the sector, which includes requiring farmers to plant trees on 10% of their land to help tackle the climate crisis. Also under debate were the problem of bovine TB and strict measures to stop rivers from being polluted by farming practices. A large policing operation was in place amid worries that farmers driving tractors might block roads around the Welsh capital. Though dozens of people did arrive in farm vehicles, they obeyed instructions to park a few hundred metres from the Senedd rather than attempting to reach the slate steps. Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Speakers from the Welsh farmers’ union NFU Cymru said the SFS would cost more than 5,000 jobs and that the turnout showed the Welsh dragon was “truly awake” and ready to fight back. However, one leader, Abi Reader, was booed when she said farmers could help the country meet net zero commitments in addition to producing nutritious, affordable food. View image in fullscreen Farmers outside the Senedd on Wednesday. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, a farmer in Carmarthenshire, south-west Wales , said that as well as producing food, farming preserved Welsh culture and language. “There can be no food on the table if there are no farmers,” he said. The most emotional speech was given by Stuart Williams, who described the silence on his Pembrokeshire farm after he lost his whole herd of cows to bovine TB. “As a fourth-generation dairy farmer, it’s in our blood. It isn’t a job; it’s a lifestyle,” he said. “We, as farmers, deserve better.” At the front of the crowd was Louise Hughes, the wife of a shepherd near Dolgellau in north-west Wales. She said: “A more pressing thing than climate change is Mr Putin. We’re teetering on the edge of world war three. This is about food security. We should be self-sufficient.” Caroline Morgan, an organic dairy farmer from south Wales, said: “The Welsh government is not listening. They just want rural Wales to be a big carbon sequester. They don’t understand.” Hettie Sheehan, who was carrying a Ukip placard, said she did not believe there was a climate emergency. “Ukip is the only party into no net zero and supports the farmers,” she said. View image in fullscreen The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, who is a farmer in Carmarthenshire, was one of the speakers at the event. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Yellow placards, sweatshirts and even bucket hats emblazoned with the slogan “No Farmers, No Food” (NFNF) could be seen all around. The slogan and tractor logo are attached to a campaign run by an anti-net zero group. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The NFNF manifesto calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the World Economic Forum to make farmers give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The campaign is run by James Melville, a GB News pundit who runs media for the Together Declaration, which also campaigns against climate measures. What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot Read more Farming contributes to about a tenth of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and almost half of the UK’s methane emissions. Livestock farming is the main factor, but industrial agricultural methods have have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. Geraint Davies, who farms in north Wales and manages his land for nature, said he had some problems with the implementation of the Welsh government’s proposed SFS but that groups such as NFNF were hijacking these valid concerns. Anna McMorrin, the MP for Cardiff North, raised the issue in the UK parliament, asking Rishi Sunak at prime minister’s questions: “The prime minister posed for photographs with a group that shares extremist conspiracy theories on climate change and campaigns against net zero. Does the prime minister share their views?” Sunak responded: “That is no way to talk about the Welsh farming community.” No Welsh ministers met the farmers. A Welsh government spokesperson said: “We have had a seven-year conversation with farmers to design future farming support and we are committed to continuing to work with farmers to develop the sustainable farming scheme.” Explore more on these topics Wales Farming Welsh politics Plaid Cymru Protest Rural affairs Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches of demonstrators had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Farmers stage mass protest outside Welsh parliament over climate policies This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers stage mass protest outside Welsh parliament over climate policies This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Farmers stage mass protest outside Welsh parliament over climate policies This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Thousands take part in demonstration as concerns grow that groups denying climate crisis are seeking to exploit campaign Thousands take part in demonstration as concerns grow that groups denying climate crisis are seeking to exploit campaign Thousands take part in demonstration as concerns grow that groups denying climate crisis are seeking to exploit campaign Thousands of farmers have staged a demonstration on the steps of the Welsh parliament to protest against climate policies that they say will wreck their industry. Flanked by Welsh Tory and Plaid Cymru politicians, farmers gave emotional accounts of trying to keep businesses going and accused the Labour-run government of betraying communities that produce the country’s food. However, concerns are growing that groups who deny there is a climate emergency, as well as campaigners against net zero plans, are trying to exploit the farmers’ campaign. Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Read more Agricultural workers gathered as the Senedd prepared to debate highly contentious issues including the government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS), its post-Brexit proposal for funding the sector, which includes requiring farmers to plant trees on 10% of their land to help tackle the climate crisis. Also under debate were the problem of bovine TB and strict measures to stop rivers from being polluted by farming practices. A large policing operation was in place amid worries that farmers driving tractors might block roads around the Welsh capital. Though dozens of people did arrive in farm vehicles, they obeyed instructions to park a few hundred metres from the Senedd rather than attempting to reach the slate steps. Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Speakers from the Welsh farmers’ union NFU Cymru said the SFS would cost more than 5,000 jobs and that the turnout showed the Welsh dragon was “truly awake” and ready to fight back. However, one leader, Abi Reader, was booed when she said farmers could help the country meet net zero commitments in addition to producing nutritious, affordable food. View image in fullscreen Farmers outside the Senedd on Wednesday. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, a farmer in Carmarthenshire, south-west Wales , said that as well as producing food, farming preserved Welsh culture and language. “There can be no food on the table if there are no farmers,” he said. The most emotional speech was given by Stuart Williams, who described the silence on his Pembrokeshire farm after he lost his whole herd of cows to bovine TB. “As a fourth-generation dairy farmer, it’s in our blood. It isn’t a job; it’s a lifestyle,” he said. “We, as farmers, deserve better.” At the front of the crowd was Louise Hughes, the wife of a shepherd near Dolgellau in north-west Wales. She said: “A more pressing thing than climate change is Mr Putin. We’re teetering on the edge of world war three. This is about food security. We should be self-sufficient.” Caroline Morgan, an organic dairy farmer from south Wales, said: “The Welsh government is not listening. They just want rural Wales to be a big carbon sequester. They don’t understand.” Hettie Sheehan, who was carrying a Ukip placard, said she did not believe there was a climate emergency. “Ukip is the only party into no net zero and supports the farmers,” she said. View image in fullscreen The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, who is a farmer in Carmarthenshire, was one of the speakers at the event. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Yellow placards, sweatshirts and even bucket hats emblazoned with the slogan “No Farmers, No Food” (NFNF) could be seen all around. The slogan and tractor logo are attached to a campaign run by an anti-net zero group. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The NFNF manifesto calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the World Economic Forum to make farmers give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The campaign is run by James Melville, a GB News pundit who runs media for the Together Declaration, which also campaigns against climate measures. What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot Read more Farming contributes to about a tenth of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and almost half of the UK’s methane emissions. Livestock farming is the main factor, but industrial agricultural methods have have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. Geraint Davies, who farms in north Wales and manages his land for nature, said he had some problems with the implementation of the Welsh government’s proposed SFS but that groups such as NFNF were hijacking these valid concerns. Anna McMorrin, the MP for Cardiff North, raised the issue in the UK parliament, asking Rishi Sunak at prime minister’s questions: “The prime minister posed for photographs with a group that shares extremist conspiracy theories on climate change and campaigns against net zero. Does the prime minister share their views?” Sunak responded: “That is no way to talk about the Welsh farming community.” No Welsh ministers met the farmers. A Welsh government spokesperson said: “We have had a seven-year conversation with farmers to design future farming support and we are committed to continuing to work with farmers to develop the sustainable farming scheme.” Explore more on these topics Wales Farming Welsh politics Plaid Cymru Protest Rural affairs Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Thousands of farmers have staged a demonstration on the steps of the Welsh parliament to protest against climate policies that they say will wreck their industry. Flanked by Welsh Tory and Plaid Cymru politicians, farmers gave emotional accounts of trying to keep businesses going and accused the Labour-run government of betraying communities that produce the country’s food. However, concerns are growing that groups who deny there is a climate emergency, as well as campaigners against net zero plans, are trying to exploit the farmers’ campaign. Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Read more Agricultural workers gathered as the Senedd prepared to debate highly contentious issues including the government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS), its post-Brexit proposal for funding the sector, which includes requiring farmers to plant trees on 10% of their land to help tackle the climate crisis. Also under debate were the problem of bovine TB and strict measures to stop rivers from being polluted by farming practices. A large policing operation was in place amid worries that farmers driving tractors might block roads around the Welsh capital. Though dozens of people did arrive in farm vehicles, they obeyed instructions to park a few hundred metres from the Senedd rather than attempting to reach the slate steps. Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Speakers from the Welsh farmers’ union NFU Cymru said the SFS would cost more than 5,000 jobs and that the turnout showed the Welsh dragon was “truly awake” and ready to fight back. However, one leader, Abi Reader, was booed when she said farmers could help the country meet net zero commitments in addition to producing nutritious, affordable food. View image in fullscreen Farmers outside the Senedd on Wednesday. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, a farmer in Carmarthenshire, south-west Wales , said that as well as producing food, farming preserved Welsh culture and language. “There can be no food on the table if there are no farmers,” he said. The most emotional speech was given by Stuart Williams, who described the silence on his Pembrokeshire farm after he lost his whole herd of cows to bovine TB. “As a fourth-generation dairy farmer, it’s in our blood. It isn’t a job; it’s a lifestyle,” he said. “We, as farmers, deserve better.” At the front of the crowd was Louise Hughes, the wife of a shepherd near Dolgellau in north-west Wales. She said: “A more pressing thing than climate change is Mr Putin. We’re teetering on the edge of world war three. This is about food security. We should be self-sufficient.” Caroline Morgan, an organic dairy farmer from south Wales, said: “The Welsh government is not listening. They just want rural Wales to be a big carbon sequester. They don’t understand.” Hettie Sheehan, who was carrying a Ukip placard, said she did not believe there was a climate emergency. “Ukip is the only party into no net zero and supports the farmers,” she said. View image in fullscreen The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, who is a farmer in Carmarthenshire, was one of the speakers at the event. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Yellow placards, sweatshirts and even bucket hats emblazoned with the slogan “No Farmers, No Food” (NFNF) could be seen all around. The slogan and tractor logo are attached to a campaign run by an anti-net zero group. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The NFNF manifesto calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the World Economic Forum to make farmers give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The campaign is run by James Melville, a GB News pundit who runs media for the Together Declaration, which also campaigns against climate measures. What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot Read more Farming contributes to about a tenth of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and almost half of the UK’s methane emissions. Livestock farming is the main factor, but industrial agricultural methods have have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. Geraint Davies, who farms in north Wales and manages his land for nature, said he had some problems with the implementation of the Welsh government’s proposed SFS but that groups such as NFNF were hijacking these valid concerns. Anna McMorrin, the MP for Cardiff North, raised the issue in the UK parliament, asking Rishi Sunak at prime minister’s questions: “The prime minister posed for photographs with a group that shares extremist conspiracy theories on climate change and campaigns against net zero. Does the prime minister share their views?” Sunak responded: “That is no way to talk about the Welsh farming community.” No Welsh ministers met the farmers. A Welsh government spokesperson said: “We have had a seven-year conversation with farmers to design future farming support and we are committed to continuing to work with farmers to develop the sustainable farming scheme.” Explore more on these topics Wales Farming Welsh politics Plaid Cymru Protest Rural affairs Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Thousands of farmers have staged a demonstration on the steps of the Welsh parliament to protest against climate policies that they say will wreck their industry. Flanked by Welsh Tory and Plaid Cymru politicians, farmers gave emotional accounts of trying to keep businesses going and accused the Labour-run government of betraying communities that produce the country’s food. However, concerns are growing that groups who deny there is a climate emergency, as well as campaigners against net zero plans, are trying to exploit the farmers’ campaign. Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Read more Agricultural workers gathered as the Senedd prepared to debate highly contentious issues including the government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS), its post-Brexit proposal for funding the sector, which includes requiring farmers to plant trees on 10% of their land to help tackle the climate crisis. Also under debate were the problem of bovine TB and strict measures to stop rivers from being polluted by farming practices. A large policing operation was in place amid worries that farmers driving tractors might block roads around the Welsh capital. Though dozens of people did arrive in farm vehicles, they obeyed instructions to park a few hundred metres from the Senedd rather than attempting to reach the slate steps. Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Speakers from the Welsh farmers’ union NFU Cymru said the SFS would cost more than 5,000 jobs and that the turnout showed the Welsh dragon was “truly awake” and ready to fight back. However, one leader, Abi Reader, was booed when she said farmers could help the country meet net zero commitments in addition to producing nutritious, affordable food. View image in fullscreen Farmers outside the Senedd on Wednesday. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, a farmer in Carmarthenshire, south-west Wales , said that as well as producing food, farming preserved Welsh culture and language. “There can be no food on the table if there are no farmers,” he said. The most emotional speech was given by Stuart Williams, who described the silence on his Pembrokeshire farm after he lost his whole herd of cows to bovine TB. “As a fourth-generation dairy farmer, it’s in our blood. It isn’t a job; it’s a lifestyle,” he said. “We, as farmers, deserve better.” At the front of the crowd was Louise Hughes, the wife of a shepherd near Dolgellau in north-west Wales. She said: “A more pressing thing than climate change is Mr Putin. We’re teetering on the edge of world war three. This is about food security. We should be self-sufficient.” Caroline Morgan, an organic dairy farmer from south Wales, said: “The Welsh government is not listening. They just want rural Wales to be a big carbon sequester. They don’t understand.” Hettie Sheehan, who was carrying a Ukip placard, said she did not believe there was a climate emergency. “Ukip is the only party into no net zero and supports the farmers,” she said. View image in fullscreen The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, who is a farmer in Carmarthenshire, was one of the speakers at the event. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Yellow placards, sweatshirts and even bucket hats emblazoned with the slogan “No Farmers, No Food” (NFNF) could be seen all around. The slogan and tractor logo are attached to a campaign run by an anti-net zero group. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The NFNF manifesto calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the World Economic Forum to make farmers give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The campaign is run by James Melville, a GB News pundit who runs media for the Together Declaration, which also campaigns against climate measures. What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot Read more Farming contributes to about a tenth of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and almost half of the UK’s methane emissions. Livestock farming is the main factor, but industrial agricultural methods have have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. Geraint Davies, who farms in north Wales and manages his land for nature, said he had some problems with the implementation of the Welsh government’s proposed SFS but that groups such as NFNF were hijacking these valid concerns. Anna McMorrin, the MP for Cardiff North, raised the issue in the UK parliament, asking Rishi Sunak at prime minister’s questions: “The prime minister posed for photographs with a group that shares extremist conspiracy theories on climate change and campaigns against net zero. Does the prime minister share their views?” Sunak responded: “That is no way to talk about the Welsh farming community.” No Welsh ministers met the farmers. A Welsh government spokesperson said: “We have had a seven-year conversation with farmers to design future farming support and we are committed to continuing to work with farmers to develop the sustainable farming scheme.” Thousands of farmers have staged a demonstration on the steps of the Welsh parliament to protest against climate policies that they say will wreck their industry. Flanked by Welsh Tory and Plaid Cymru politicians, farmers gave emotional accounts of trying to keep businesses going and accused the Labour-run government of betraying communities that produce the country’s food. However, concerns are growing that groups who deny there is a climate emergency, as well as campaigners against net zero plans, are trying to exploit the farmers’ campaign. Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Read more Agricultural workers gathered as the Senedd prepared to debate highly contentious issues including the government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS), its post-Brexit proposal for funding the sector, which includes requiring farmers to plant trees on 10% of their land to help tackle the climate crisis. Also under debate were the problem of bovine TB and strict measures to stop rivers from being polluted by farming practices. A large policing operation was in place amid worries that farmers driving tractors might block roads around the Welsh capital. Though dozens of people did arrive in farm vehicles, they obeyed instructions to park a few hundred metres from the Senedd rather than attempting to reach the slate steps. Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Speakers from the Welsh farmers’ union NFU Cymru said the SFS would cost more than 5,000 jobs and that the turnout showed the Welsh dragon was “truly awake” and ready to fight back. However, one leader, Abi Reader, was booed when she said farmers could help the country meet net zero commitments in addition to producing nutritious, affordable food. View image in fullscreen Farmers outside the Senedd on Wednesday. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, a farmer in Carmarthenshire, south-west Wales , said that as well as producing food, farming preserved Welsh culture and language. “There can be no food on the table if there are no farmers,” he said. The most emotional speech was given by Stuart Williams, who described the silence on his Pembrokeshire farm after he lost his whole herd of cows to bovine TB. “As a fourth-generation dairy farmer, it’s in our blood. It isn’t a job; it’s a lifestyle,” he said. “We, as farmers, deserve better.” At the front of the crowd was Louise Hughes, the wife of a shepherd near Dolgellau in north-west Wales. She said: “A more pressing thing than climate change is Mr Putin. We’re teetering on the edge of world war three. This is about food security. We should be self-sufficient.” Caroline Morgan, an organic dairy farmer from south Wales, said: “The Welsh government is not listening. They just want rural Wales to be a big carbon sequester. They don’t understand.” Hettie Sheehan, who was carrying a Ukip placard, said she did not believe there was a climate emergency. “Ukip is the only party into no net zero and supports the farmers,” she said. View image in fullscreen The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, who is a farmer in Carmarthenshire, was one of the speakers at the event. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Yellow placards, sweatshirts and even bucket hats emblazoned with the slogan “No Farmers, No Food” (NFNF) could be seen all around. The slogan and tractor logo are attached to a campaign run by an anti-net zero group. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The NFNF manifesto calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the World Economic Forum to make farmers give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The campaign is run by James Melville, a GB News pundit who runs media for the Together Declaration, which also campaigns against climate measures. What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot Read more Farming contributes to about a tenth of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and almost half of the UK’s methane emissions. Livestock farming is the main factor, but industrial agricultural methods have have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. Geraint Davies, who farms in north Wales and manages his land for nature, said he had some problems with the implementation of the Welsh government’s proposed SFS but that groups such as NFNF were hijacking these valid concerns. Anna McMorrin, the MP for Cardiff North, raised the issue in the UK parliament, asking Rishi Sunak at prime minister’s questions: “The prime minister posed for photographs with a group that shares extremist conspiracy theories on climate change and campaigns against net zero. Does the prime minister share their views?” Sunak responded: “That is no way to talk about the Welsh farming community.” No Welsh ministers met the farmers. A Welsh government spokesperson said: “We have had a seven-year conversation with farmers to design future farming support and we are committed to continuing to work with farmers to develop the sustainable farming scheme.” Thousands of farmers have staged a demonstration on the steps of the Welsh parliament to protest against climate policies that they say will wreck their industry. Flanked by Welsh Tory and Plaid Cymru politicians, farmers gave emotional accounts of trying to keep businesses going and accused the Labour-run government of betraying communities that produce the country’s food. However, concerns are growing that groups who deny there is a climate emergency, as well as campaigners against net zero plans, are trying to exploit the farmers’ campaign. Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Read more Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Read more Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Read more Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? Agricultural workers gathered as the Senedd prepared to debate highly contentious issues including the government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS), its post-Brexit proposal for funding the sector, which includes requiring farmers to plant trees on 10% of their land to help tackle the climate crisis. Also under debate were the problem of bovine TB and strict measures to stop rivers from being polluted by farming practices. A large policing operation was in place amid worries that farmers driving tractors might block roads around the Welsh capital. Though dozens of people did arrive in farm vehicles, they obeyed instructions to park a few hundred metres from the Senedd rather than attempting to reach the slate steps. Organisers claimed that more than 200 coaches had come to Cardiff from across Wales. Speakers from the Welsh farmers’ union NFU Cymru said the SFS would cost more than 5,000 jobs and that the turnout showed the Welsh dragon was “truly awake” and ready to fight back. However, one leader, Abi Reader, was booed when she said farmers could help the country meet net zero commitments in addition to producing nutritious, affordable food. The former international rugby referee Nigel Owens, a farmer in Carmarthenshire, south-west Wales , said that as well as producing food, farming preserved Welsh culture and language. “There can be no food on the table if there are no farmers,” he said. The most emotional speech was given by Stuart Williams, who described the silence on his Pembrokeshire farm after he lost his whole herd of cows to bovine TB. “As a fourth-generation dairy farmer, it’s in our blood. It isn’t a job; it’s a lifestyle,” he said. “We, as farmers, deserve better.” At the front of the crowd was Louise Hughes, the wife of a shepherd near Dolgellau in north-west Wales. She said: “A more pressing thing than climate change is Mr Putin. We’re teetering on the edge of world war three. This is about food security. We should be self-sufficient.” Caroline Morgan, an organic dairy farmer from south Wales, said: “The Welsh government is not listening. They just want rural Wales to be a big carbon sequester. They don’t understand.” Hettie Sheehan, who was carrying a Ukip placard, said she did not believe there was a climate emergency. “Ukip is the only party into no net zero and supports the farmers,” she said. Yellow placards, sweatshirts and even bucket hats emblazoned with the slogan “No Farmers, No Food” (NFNF) could be seen all around. The slogan and tractor logo are attached to a campaign run by an anti-net zero group. The NFNF manifesto calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the World Economic Forum to make farmers give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The campaign is run by James Melville, a GB News pundit who runs media for the Together Declaration, which also campaigns against climate measures. What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot Read more What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot Read more What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot Read more What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot What’s going on in Wales? Real farmers duped by ‘outrage’ farmers, and a clueless Sunak along for the ride | George Monbiot Farming contributes to about a tenth of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and almost half of the UK’s methane emissions. Livestock farming is the main factor, but industrial agricultural methods have have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. Geraint Davies, who farms in north Wales and manages his land for nature, said he had some problems with the implementation of the Welsh government’s proposed SFS but that groups such as NFNF were hijacking these valid concerns. Anna McMorrin, the MP for Cardiff North, raised the issue in the UK parliament, asking Rishi Sunak at prime minister’s questions: “The prime minister posed for photographs with a group that shares extremist conspiracy theories on climate change and campaigns against net zero. Does the prime minister share their views?” Sunak responded: “That is no way to talk about the Welsh farming community.” No Welsh ministers met the farmers. A Welsh government spokesperson said: “We have had a seven-year conversation with farmers to design future farming support and we are committed to continuing to work with farmers to develop the sustainable farming scheme.” Explore more on these topics Wales Farming Welsh politics Plaid Cymru Protest Rural affairs Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Wales Farming Welsh politics Plaid Cymru Protest Rural affairs Climate crisis news |
Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies?
Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? This article is more than 1 year old Anger over sustainable farming scheme has triggered a wave of protests across the country Farmers and agricultural workers have descended in force on Cardiff to protest against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies, which they claim are putting thousands of jobs and their way of life at risk. Protests have sprung up across Wales over the past few weeks with farmers turning up at political events in tractors and causing delays on roads. It has the potential to become one of Welsh Labour’s biggest crises since devolution 25 years ago. What are the farmers protesting about? The main trigger for the protests are proposals in the Welsh government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS) – its post-Brexit plan for funding the industry from 2025. One of the ideas is that farmers should commit to ensuring 10% of their land is under tree cover. Farmers argue this would be costly, unpractical and leave them overwhelmed with paperwork. Some farmers are also angry at the phasing in of strict rules to control the spreading of human-made fertiliser and animal manure , which are designed to protect water quality in rivers. Last, but not least, is the effort to tackle bovine TB. What protests have taken place so far? The farmers have chosen their targets carefully during their “Enough is enough” campaign. At the start of February, they turned up in tractors outside the offices of the Welsh government’s rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, in Wrexham, north Wales, and eggs were smashed on the doorstep. They then focused on the contest to select the next Welsh first minister and more than 100 tractors and pickup trucks arrived at a leadership hustings in Newtown , mid Wales. The same sort of numbers disrupted traffic on the A48 near Carmarthen in south-west Wales, prompting police to ask drivers to avoid the area. When the first minister, Mark Drakeford, went to Rhyl in north Wales to open an engineering centre, farmers were there in force to meet him . They were out in north Wales again last week when the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, was in Llandudno for the Welsh Conservative conference. Sunak criticised Labour’s policies and told the protesters: “We’ve got your back.” Many farmers want a badger cull but the Welsh government refuses to introduce one. Who are the protesters? The campaign has not been organised by a farming union but is very much a grassroots movement with protests organised through social media and word of mouth. A Facebook group, Welsh farmers’ protests , has more than 12,000 members. What is the economic impact of the SFS? A report on the possible impact makes sobering reading. If there was 100% take-up it suggests it could lead to a 10.8% reduction in Welsh livestock numbers, an 11% cut in labour on Welsh farms – the equivalent of 5,500 jobs according to NFU Cymru – and a loss of millions of pounds to the industry. The NFU Cymru president, Aled Jones, called this a “shocking scenario” . Why are these measure being taken by the Welsh government? Farming is responsible for approximately 10% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and 47% of the UK’s methane emissions. Most of this is driven by livestock farming. Farming methods have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. For example, in 2022 the UK farmland bird index was 60% below its 1970 value. Most of these biodiversity declines started in the 1970s as farming methods changed. Many farmers have begun to change this in recent years, switching to more organic practices, digging ponds for wildlife, planting trees and tending hedgerows. However, this change is not happening fast enough according to climate and nature experts, so the governments of the UK are changing their farming payments policies to reward restoring some farmland to nature. The Welsh government has argued its proposed SFS scheme would secure food production but also address the climate and nature emergencies. Ministers point out there have been 10 roadshows across Wales since January with more than 3,200 farmers spoken to about SFS. The consultation comes to an end on 7 March. What do the other parties say? Plenty. The Tory leader in Wales , Andrew RT Davies, said the party would put the SFS “in the bin where it belongs”, claiming Labour is against farmers and rural communities. As the farmers gathered at the Senedd, members were due to debate and vote on a motion brought by the Conservatives calling for the SFS to be scrapped, followed by a Plaid Cymru motion calling for urgent changes to the approach to bovine TB. How bad is this for Labour? Labour has governed in Wales since devolution but it has had a bad start to 2024. In January, junior doctors went on strike for the first time and hundreds protested on the steps of the Senedd, not far from the statue of Labour hero Aneurin Bevan, who spearheaded the foundation of the NHS. It is also still taking flak for introducing a 20mph speed limit across much of Wales. But the farmers’ protest may become even bigger. Is there any sign the government is listening? Yes. Hours before the protest, Drakeford and Griffiths announced initiatives designed to calm the farmers. On the SFS, they said they wanted to make sure woodland and habitat requirements do not make farms unviable and would carry out an “updated economic analysis”. They said they would consider an “evidence-based review” of alternative proposals to achieve carbon sequestration within the SFS – a signal that the tree-planting requirements may be eased. The ministers also said they would appoint a bovine TB technical advisory group and provide an additional £20m to help farmers tackle the issue of river pollution. They also reminded farmers that a new first minister would be in place next month, who would, no doubt, come to the issue with fresh eyes. What is the wider political context? It is a febrile time for the farming community, which has felt ignored as costs rise and they are asked to take extra environmental measures . At the same time, rural concerns are going to be a large part of the next general election, with the Conservatives in the rest of the UK worried about losing their countryside seats. For the first time, it looks like most of the rural constituencies in England will go Liberal Democrat and Labour. That’s probably why Rishi Sunak joined the farming protests on Friday. But another group is also trying to take advantage of farmers’ concerns – the No Farmers No Food campaign, which met Sunak, is attempting to draw a connection between unpopular aspects of farming policy and the net zero agenda in general. Its founder, James Melville, who is also a leading member of the Together Declaration , which began as an anti-Covid lockdown group, but pushes against various policies, from London’s ultra-low emission zone to net zero. The No Farmers No Food campaign calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero, and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the WEF to force farmers to give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The yellow No Farmers No Food banners are expected to be out in force at the protest, and it could be used as a recruitment opportunity for the anti-net zero campaign. The Welsh Conservatives have shared its campaign message on social media. Will the protests stop here? Probably not. The farmers are unlikely to think the government has moved enough and protests are likely to continue. On 7 March, NFU Cymru is planning to place 5,500 pairs of wellies on the steps of the Senedd to represent the jobs at risk. And the grassroots tractor campaign is likely to continue. Explore more on these topics Wales Farming Welsh government Welsh politics Rural affairs explainers Share Reuse this content Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? This article is more than 1 year old Anger over sustainable farming scheme has triggered a wave of protests across the country Farmers and agricultural workers have descended in force on Cardiff to protest against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies, which they claim are putting thousands of jobs and their way of life at risk. Protests have sprung up across Wales over the past few weeks with farmers turning up at political events in tractors and causing delays on roads. It has the potential to become one of Welsh Labour’s biggest crises since devolution 25 years ago. What are the farmers protesting about? The main trigger for the protests are proposals in the Welsh government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS) – its post-Brexit plan for funding the industry from 2025. One of the ideas is that farmers should commit to ensuring 10% of their land is under tree cover. Farmers argue this would be costly, unpractical and leave them overwhelmed with paperwork. Some farmers are also angry at the phasing in of strict rules to control the spreading of human-made fertiliser and animal manure , which are designed to protect water quality in rivers. Last, but not least, is the effort to tackle bovine TB. What protests have taken place so far? The farmers have chosen their targets carefully during their “Enough is enough” campaign. At the start of February, they turned up in tractors outside the offices of the Welsh government’s rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, in Wrexham, north Wales, and eggs were smashed on the doorstep. They then focused on the contest to select the next Welsh first minister and more than 100 tractors and pickup trucks arrived at a leadership hustings in Newtown , mid Wales. The same sort of numbers disrupted traffic on the A48 near Carmarthen in south-west Wales, prompting police to ask drivers to avoid the area. When the first minister, Mark Drakeford, went to Rhyl in north Wales to open an engineering centre, farmers were there in force to meet him . They were out in north Wales again last week when the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, was in Llandudno for the Welsh Conservative conference. Sunak criticised Labour’s policies and told the protesters: “We’ve got your back.” Many farmers want a badger cull but the Welsh government refuses to introduce one. Who are the protesters? The campaign has not been organised by a farming union but is very much a grassroots movement with protests organised through social media and word of mouth. A Facebook group, Welsh farmers’ protests , has more than 12,000 members. What is the economic impact of the SFS? A report on the possible impact makes sobering reading. If there was 100% take-up it suggests it could lead to a 10.8% reduction in Welsh livestock numbers, an 11% cut in labour on Welsh farms – the equivalent of 5,500 jobs according to NFU Cymru – and a loss of millions of pounds to the industry. The NFU Cymru president, Aled Jones, called this a “shocking scenario” . Why are these measure being taken by the Welsh government? Farming is responsible for approximately 10% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and 47% of the UK’s methane emissions. Most of this is driven by livestock farming. Farming methods have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. For example, in 2022 the UK farmland bird index was 60% below its 1970 value. Most of these biodiversity declines started in the 1970s as farming methods changed. Many farmers have begun to change this in recent years, switching to more organic practices, digging ponds for wildlife, planting trees and tending hedgerows. However, this change is not happening fast enough according to climate and nature experts, so the governments of the UK are changing their farming payments policies to reward restoring some farmland to nature. The Welsh government has argued its proposed SFS scheme would secure food production but also address the climate and nature emergencies. Ministers point out there have been 10 roadshows across Wales since January with more than 3,200 farmers spoken to about SFS. The consultation comes to an end on 7 March. What do the other parties say? Plenty. The Tory leader in Wales , Andrew RT Davies, said the party would put the SFS “in the bin where it belongs”, claiming Labour is against farmers and rural communities. As the farmers gathered at the Senedd, members were due to debate and vote on a motion brought by the Conservatives calling for the SFS to be scrapped, followed by a Plaid Cymru motion calling for urgent changes to the approach to bovine TB. How bad is this for Labour? Labour has governed in Wales since devolution but it has had a bad start to 2024. In January, junior doctors went on strike for the first time and hundreds protested on the steps of the Senedd, not far from the statue of Labour hero Aneurin Bevan, who spearheaded the foundation of the NHS. It is also still taking flak for introducing a 20mph speed limit across much of Wales. But the farmers’ protest may become even bigger. Is there any sign the government is listening? Yes. Hours before the protest, Drakeford and Griffiths announced initiatives designed to calm the farmers. On the SFS, they said they wanted to make sure woodland and habitat requirements do not make farms unviable and would carry out an “updated economic analysis”. They said they would consider an “evidence-based review” of alternative proposals to achieve carbon sequestration within the SFS – a signal that the tree-planting requirements may be eased. The ministers also said they would appoint a bovine TB technical advisory group and provide an additional £20m to help farmers tackle the issue of river pollution. They also reminded farmers that a new first minister would be in place next month, who would, no doubt, come to the issue with fresh eyes. What is the wider political context? It is a febrile time for the farming community, which has felt ignored as costs rise and they are asked to take extra environmental measures . At the same time, rural concerns are going to be a large part of the next general election, with the Conservatives in the rest of the UK worried about losing their countryside seats. For the first time, it looks like most of the rural constituencies in England will go Liberal Democrat and Labour. That’s probably why Rishi Sunak joined the farming protests on Friday. But another group is also trying to take advantage of farmers’ concerns – the No Farmers No Food campaign, which met Sunak, is attempting to draw a connection between unpopular aspects of farming policy and the net zero agenda in general. Its founder, James Melville, who is also a leading member of the Together Declaration , which began as an anti-Covid lockdown group, but pushes against various policies, from London’s ultra-low emission zone to net zero. The No Farmers No Food campaign calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero, and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the WEF to force farmers to give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The yellow No Farmers No Food banners are expected to be out in force at the protest, and it could be used as a recruitment opportunity for the anti-net zero campaign. The Welsh Conservatives have shared its campaign message on social media. Will the protests stop here? Probably not. The farmers are unlikely to think the government has moved enough and protests are likely to continue. On 7 March, NFU Cymru is planning to place 5,500 pairs of wellies on the steps of the Senedd to represent the jobs at risk. And the grassroots tractor campaign is likely to continue. Explore more on these topics Wales Farming Welsh government Welsh politics Rural affairs explainers Share Reuse this content Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian Farmers travel to a demonstration against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies. Photograph: Dimitris Legakis/Athena/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Explainer Why are farmers protesting against Welsh government’s rural policies? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Anger over sustainable farming scheme has triggered a wave of protests across the country Anger over sustainable farming scheme has triggered a wave of protests across the country Anger over sustainable farming scheme has triggered a wave of protests across the country Farmers and agricultural workers have descended in force on Cardiff to protest against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies, which they claim are putting thousands of jobs and their way of life at risk. Protests have sprung up across Wales over the past few weeks with farmers turning up at political events in tractors and causing delays on roads. It has the potential to become one of Welsh Labour’s biggest crises since devolution 25 years ago. What are the farmers protesting about? The main trigger for the protests are proposals in the Welsh government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS) – its post-Brexit plan for funding the industry from 2025. One of the ideas is that farmers should commit to ensuring 10% of their land is under tree cover. Farmers argue this would be costly, unpractical and leave them overwhelmed with paperwork. Some farmers are also angry at the phasing in of strict rules to control the spreading of human-made fertiliser and animal manure , which are designed to protect water quality in rivers. Last, but not least, is the effort to tackle bovine TB. What protests have taken place so far? The farmers have chosen their targets carefully during their “Enough is enough” campaign. At the start of February, they turned up in tractors outside the offices of the Welsh government’s rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, in Wrexham, north Wales, and eggs were smashed on the doorstep. They then focused on the contest to select the next Welsh first minister and more than 100 tractors and pickup trucks arrived at a leadership hustings in Newtown , mid Wales. The same sort of numbers disrupted traffic on the A48 near Carmarthen in south-west Wales, prompting police to ask drivers to avoid the area. When the first minister, Mark Drakeford, went to Rhyl in north Wales to open an engineering centre, farmers were there in force to meet him . They were out in north Wales again last week when the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, was in Llandudno for the Welsh Conservative conference. Sunak criticised Labour’s policies and told the protesters: “We’ve got your back.” Many farmers want a badger cull but the Welsh government refuses to introduce one. Who are the protesters? The campaign has not been organised by a farming union but is very much a grassroots movement with protests organised through social media and word of mouth. A Facebook group, Welsh farmers’ protests , has more than 12,000 members. What is the economic impact of the SFS? A report on the possible impact makes sobering reading. If there was 100% take-up it suggests it could lead to a 10.8% reduction in Welsh livestock numbers, an 11% cut in labour on Welsh farms – the equivalent of 5,500 jobs according to NFU Cymru – and a loss of millions of pounds to the industry. The NFU Cymru president, Aled Jones, called this a “shocking scenario” . Why are these measure being taken by the Welsh government? Farming is responsible for approximately 10% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and 47% of the UK’s methane emissions. Most of this is driven by livestock farming. Farming methods have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. For example, in 2022 the UK farmland bird index was 60% below its 1970 value. Most of these biodiversity declines started in the 1970s as farming methods changed. Many farmers have begun to change this in recent years, switching to more organic practices, digging ponds for wildlife, planting trees and tending hedgerows. However, this change is not happening fast enough according to climate and nature experts, so the governments of the UK are changing their farming payments policies to reward restoring some farmland to nature. The Welsh government has argued its proposed SFS scheme would secure food production but also address the climate and nature emergencies. Ministers point out there have been 10 roadshows across Wales since January with more than 3,200 farmers spoken to about SFS. The consultation comes to an end on 7 March. What do the other parties say? Plenty. The Tory leader in Wales , Andrew RT Davies, said the party would put the SFS “in the bin where it belongs”, claiming Labour is against farmers and rural communities. As the farmers gathered at the Senedd, members were due to debate and vote on a motion brought by the Conservatives calling for the SFS to be scrapped, followed by a Plaid Cymru motion calling for urgent changes to the approach to bovine TB. How bad is this for Labour? Labour has governed in Wales since devolution but it has had a bad start to 2024. In January, junior doctors went on strike for the first time and hundreds protested on the steps of the Senedd, not far from the statue of Labour hero Aneurin Bevan, who spearheaded the foundation of the NHS. It is also still taking flak for introducing a 20mph speed limit across much of Wales. But the farmers’ protest may become even bigger. Is there any sign the government is listening? Yes. Hours before the protest, Drakeford and Griffiths announced initiatives designed to calm the farmers. On the SFS, they said they wanted to make sure woodland and habitat requirements do not make farms unviable and would carry out an “updated economic analysis”. They said they would consider an “evidence-based review” of alternative proposals to achieve carbon sequestration within the SFS – a signal that the tree-planting requirements may be eased. The ministers also said they would appoint a bovine TB technical advisory group and provide an additional £20m to help farmers tackle the issue of river pollution. They also reminded farmers that a new first minister would be in place next month, who would, no doubt, come to the issue with fresh eyes. What is the wider political context? It is a febrile time for the farming community, which has felt ignored as costs rise and they are asked to take extra environmental measures . At the same time, rural concerns are going to be a large part of the next general election, with the Conservatives in the rest of the UK worried about losing their countryside seats. For the first time, it looks like most of the rural constituencies in England will go Liberal Democrat and Labour. That’s probably why Rishi Sunak joined the farming protests on Friday. But another group is also trying to take advantage of farmers’ concerns – the No Farmers No Food campaign, which met Sunak, is attempting to draw a connection between unpopular aspects of farming policy and the net zero agenda in general. Its founder, James Melville, who is also a leading member of the Together Declaration , which began as an anti-Covid lockdown group, but pushes against various policies, from London’s ultra-low emission zone to net zero. The No Farmers No Food campaign calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero, and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the WEF to force farmers to give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The yellow No Farmers No Food banners are expected to be out in force at the protest, and it could be used as a recruitment opportunity for the anti-net zero campaign. The Welsh Conservatives have shared its campaign message on social media. Will the protests stop here? Probably not. The farmers are unlikely to think the government has moved enough and protests are likely to continue. On 7 March, NFU Cymru is planning to place 5,500 pairs of wellies on the steps of the Senedd to represent the jobs at risk. And the grassroots tractor campaign is likely to continue. Explore more on these topics Wales Farming Welsh government Welsh politics Rural affairs explainers Share Reuse this content Farmers and agricultural workers have descended in force on Cardiff to protest against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies, which they claim are putting thousands of jobs and their way of life at risk. Protests have sprung up across Wales over the past few weeks with farmers turning up at political events in tractors and causing delays on roads. It has the potential to become one of Welsh Labour’s biggest crises since devolution 25 years ago. What are the farmers protesting about? The main trigger for the protests are proposals in the Welsh government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS) – its post-Brexit plan for funding the industry from 2025. One of the ideas is that farmers should commit to ensuring 10% of their land is under tree cover. Farmers argue this would be costly, unpractical and leave them overwhelmed with paperwork. Some farmers are also angry at the phasing in of strict rules to control the spreading of human-made fertiliser and animal manure , which are designed to protect water quality in rivers. Last, but not least, is the effort to tackle bovine TB. What protests have taken place so far? The farmers have chosen their targets carefully during their “Enough is enough” campaign. At the start of February, they turned up in tractors outside the offices of the Welsh government’s rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, in Wrexham, north Wales, and eggs were smashed on the doorstep. They then focused on the contest to select the next Welsh first minister and more than 100 tractors and pickup trucks arrived at a leadership hustings in Newtown , mid Wales. The same sort of numbers disrupted traffic on the A48 near Carmarthen in south-west Wales, prompting police to ask drivers to avoid the area. When the first minister, Mark Drakeford, went to Rhyl in north Wales to open an engineering centre, farmers were there in force to meet him . They were out in north Wales again last week when the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, was in Llandudno for the Welsh Conservative conference. Sunak criticised Labour’s policies and told the protesters: “We’ve got your back.” Many farmers want a badger cull but the Welsh government refuses to introduce one. Who are the protesters? The campaign has not been organised by a farming union but is very much a grassroots movement with protests organised through social media and word of mouth. A Facebook group, Welsh farmers’ protests , has more than 12,000 members. What is the economic impact of the SFS? A report on the possible impact makes sobering reading. If there was 100% take-up it suggests it could lead to a 10.8% reduction in Welsh livestock numbers, an 11% cut in labour on Welsh farms – the equivalent of 5,500 jobs according to NFU Cymru – and a loss of millions of pounds to the industry. The NFU Cymru president, Aled Jones, called this a “shocking scenario” . Why are these measure being taken by the Welsh government? Farming is responsible for approximately 10% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and 47% of the UK’s methane emissions. Most of this is driven by livestock farming. Farming methods have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. For example, in 2022 the UK farmland bird index was 60% below its 1970 value. Most of these biodiversity declines started in the 1970s as farming methods changed. Many farmers have begun to change this in recent years, switching to more organic practices, digging ponds for wildlife, planting trees and tending hedgerows. However, this change is not happening fast enough according to climate and nature experts, so the governments of the UK are changing their farming payments policies to reward restoring some farmland to nature. The Welsh government has argued its proposed SFS scheme would secure food production but also address the climate and nature emergencies. Ministers point out there have been 10 roadshows across Wales since January with more than 3,200 farmers spoken to about SFS. The consultation comes to an end on 7 March. What do the other parties say? Plenty. The Tory leader in Wales , Andrew RT Davies, said the party would put the SFS “in the bin where it belongs”, claiming Labour is against farmers and rural communities. As the farmers gathered at the Senedd, members were due to debate and vote on a motion brought by the Conservatives calling for the SFS to be scrapped, followed by a Plaid Cymru motion calling for urgent changes to the approach to bovine TB. How bad is this for Labour? Labour has governed in Wales since devolution but it has had a bad start to 2024. In January, junior doctors went on strike for the first time and hundreds protested on the steps of the Senedd, not far from the statue of Labour hero Aneurin Bevan, who spearheaded the foundation of the NHS. It is also still taking flak for introducing a 20mph speed limit across much of Wales. But the farmers’ protest may become even bigger. Is there any sign the government is listening? Yes. Hours before the protest, Drakeford and Griffiths announced initiatives designed to calm the farmers. On the SFS, they said they wanted to make sure woodland and habitat requirements do not make farms unviable and would carry out an “updated economic analysis”. They said they would consider an “evidence-based review” of alternative proposals to achieve carbon sequestration within the SFS – a signal that the tree-planting requirements may be eased. The ministers also said they would appoint a bovine TB technical advisory group and provide an additional £20m to help farmers tackle the issue of river pollution. They also reminded farmers that a new first minister would be in place next month, who would, no doubt, come to the issue with fresh eyes. What is the wider political context? It is a febrile time for the farming community, which has felt ignored as costs rise and they are asked to take extra environmental measures . At the same time, rural concerns are going to be a large part of the next general election, with the Conservatives in the rest of the UK worried about losing their countryside seats. For the first time, it looks like most of the rural constituencies in England will go Liberal Democrat and Labour. That’s probably why Rishi Sunak joined the farming protests on Friday. But another group is also trying to take advantage of farmers’ concerns – the No Farmers No Food campaign, which met Sunak, is attempting to draw a connection between unpopular aspects of farming policy and the net zero agenda in general. Its founder, James Melville, who is also a leading member of the Together Declaration , which began as an anti-Covid lockdown group, but pushes against various policies, from London’s ultra-low emission zone to net zero. The No Farmers No Food campaign calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero, and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the WEF to force farmers to give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The yellow No Farmers No Food banners are expected to be out in force at the protest, and it could be used as a recruitment opportunity for the anti-net zero campaign. The Welsh Conservatives have shared its campaign message on social media. Will the protests stop here? Probably not. The farmers are unlikely to think the government has moved enough and protests are likely to continue. On 7 March, NFU Cymru is planning to place 5,500 pairs of wellies on the steps of the Senedd to represent the jobs at risk. And the grassroots tractor campaign is likely to continue. Explore more on these topics Wales Farming Welsh government Welsh politics Rural affairs explainers Share Reuse this content Farmers and agricultural workers have descended in force on Cardiff to protest against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies, which they claim are putting thousands of jobs and their way of life at risk. Protests have sprung up across Wales over the past few weeks with farmers turning up at political events in tractors and causing delays on roads. It has the potential to become one of Welsh Labour’s biggest crises since devolution 25 years ago. What are the farmers protesting about? The main trigger for the protests are proposals in the Welsh government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS) – its post-Brexit plan for funding the industry from 2025. One of the ideas is that farmers should commit to ensuring 10% of their land is under tree cover. Farmers argue this would be costly, unpractical and leave them overwhelmed with paperwork. Some farmers are also angry at the phasing in of strict rules to control the spreading of human-made fertiliser and animal manure , which are designed to protect water quality in rivers. Last, but not least, is the effort to tackle bovine TB. What protests have taken place so far? The farmers have chosen their targets carefully during their “Enough is enough” campaign. At the start of February, they turned up in tractors outside the offices of the Welsh government’s rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, in Wrexham, north Wales, and eggs were smashed on the doorstep. They then focused on the contest to select the next Welsh first minister and more than 100 tractors and pickup trucks arrived at a leadership hustings in Newtown , mid Wales. The same sort of numbers disrupted traffic on the A48 near Carmarthen in south-west Wales, prompting police to ask drivers to avoid the area. When the first minister, Mark Drakeford, went to Rhyl in north Wales to open an engineering centre, farmers were there in force to meet him . They were out in north Wales again last week when the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, was in Llandudno for the Welsh Conservative conference. Sunak criticised Labour’s policies and told the protesters: “We’ve got your back.” Many farmers want a badger cull but the Welsh government refuses to introduce one. Who are the protesters? The campaign has not been organised by a farming union but is very much a grassroots movement with protests organised through social media and word of mouth. A Facebook group, Welsh farmers’ protests , has more than 12,000 members. What is the economic impact of the SFS? A report on the possible impact makes sobering reading. If there was 100% take-up it suggests it could lead to a 10.8% reduction in Welsh livestock numbers, an 11% cut in labour on Welsh farms – the equivalent of 5,500 jobs according to NFU Cymru – and a loss of millions of pounds to the industry. The NFU Cymru president, Aled Jones, called this a “shocking scenario” . Why are these measure being taken by the Welsh government? Farming is responsible for approximately 10% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and 47% of the UK’s methane emissions. Most of this is driven by livestock farming. Farming methods have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. For example, in 2022 the UK farmland bird index was 60% below its 1970 value. Most of these biodiversity declines started in the 1970s as farming methods changed. Many farmers have begun to change this in recent years, switching to more organic practices, digging ponds for wildlife, planting trees and tending hedgerows. However, this change is not happening fast enough according to climate and nature experts, so the governments of the UK are changing their farming payments policies to reward restoring some farmland to nature. The Welsh government has argued its proposed SFS scheme would secure food production but also address the climate and nature emergencies. Ministers point out there have been 10 roadshows across Wales since January with more than 3,200 farmers spoken to about SFS. The consultation comes to an end on 7 March. What do the other parties say? Plenty. The Tory leader in Wales , Andrew RT Davies, said the party would put the SFS “in the bin where it belongs”, claiming Labour is against farmers and rural communities. As the farmers gathered at the Senedd, members were due to debate and vote on a motion brought by the Conservatives calling for the SFS to be scrapped, followed by a Plaid Cymru motion calling for urgent changes to the approach to bovine TB. How bad is this for Labour? Labour has governed in Wales since devolution but it has had a bad start to 2024. In January, junior doctors went on strike for the first time and hundreds protested on the steps of the Senedd, not far from the statue of Labour hero Aneurin Bevan, who spearheaded the foundation of the NHS. It is also still taking flak for introducing a 20mph speed limit across much of Wales. But the farmers’ protest may become even bigger. Is there any sign the government is listening? Yes. Hours before the protest, Drakeford and Griffiths announced initiatives designed to calm the farmers. On the SFS, they said they wanted to make sure woodland and habitat requirements do not make farms unviable and would carry out an “updated economic analysis”. They said they would consider an “evidence-based review” of alternative proposals to achieve carbon sequestration within the SFS – a signal that the tree-planting requirements may be eased. The ministers also said they would appoint a bovine TB technical advisory group and provide an additional £20m to help farmers tackle the issue of river pollution. They also reminded farmers that a new first minister would be in place next month, who would, no doubt, come to the issue with fresh eyes. What is the wider political context? It is a febrile time for the farming community, which has felt ignored as costs rise and they are asked to take extra environmental measures . At the same time, rural concerns are going to be a large part of the next general election, with the Conservatives in the rest of the UK worried about losing their countryside seats. For the first time, it looks like most of the rural constituencies in England will go Liberal Democrat and Labour. That’s probably why Rishi Sunak joined the farming protests on Friday. But another group is also trying to take advantage of farmers’ concerns – the No Farmers No Food campaign, which met Sunak, is attempting to draw a connection between unpopular aspects of farming policy and the net zero agenda in general. Its founder, James Melville, who is also a leading member of the Together Declaration , which began as an anti-Covid lockdown group, but pushes against various policies, from London’s ultra-low emission zone to net zero. The No Farmers No Food campaign calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero, and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the WEF to force farmers to give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The yellow No Farmers No Food banners are expected to be out in force at the protest, and it could be used as a recruitment opportunity for the anti-net zero campaign. The Welsh Conservatives have shared its campaign message on social media. Will the protests stop here? Probably not. The farmers are unlikely to think the government has moved enough and protests are likely to continue. On 7 March, NFU Cymru is planning to place 5,500 pairs of wellies on the steps of the Senedd to represent the jobs at risk. And the grassroots tractor campaign is likely to continue. Farmers and agricultural workers have descended in force on Cardiff to protest against a number of the Welsh government’s rural policies, which they claim are putting thousands of jobs and their way of life at risk. Protests have sprung up across Wales over the past few weeks with farmers turning up at political events in tractors and causing delays on roads. It has the potential to become one of Welsh Labour’s biggest crises since devolution 25 years ago. What are the farmers protesting about? The main trigger for the protests are proposals in the Welsh government’s sustainable farming scheme (SFS) – its post-Brexit plan for funding the industry from 2025. One of the ideas is that farmers should commit to ensuring 10% of their land is under tree cover. Farmers argue this would be costly, unpractical and leave them overwhelmed with paperwork. Some farmers are also angry at the phasing in of strict rules to control the spreading of human-made fertiliser and animal manure , which are designed to protect water quality in rivers. Last, but not least, is the effort to tackle bovine TB. What protests have taken place so far? The farmers have chosen their targets carefully during their “Enough is enough” campaign. At the start of February, they turned up in tractors outside the offices of the Welsh government’s rural affairs minister, Lesley Griffiths, in Wrexham, north Wales, and eggs were smashed on the doorstep. They then focused on the contest to select the next Welsh first minister and more than 100 tractors and pickup trucks arrived at a leadership hustings in Newtown , mid Wales. The same sort of numbers disrupted traffic on the A48 near Carmarthen in south-west Wales, prompting police to ask drivers to avoid the area. When the first minister, Mark Drakeford, went to Rhyl in north Wales to open an engineering centre, farmers were there in force to meet him . They were out in north Wales again last week when the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, was in Llandudno for the Welsh Conservative conference. Sunak criticised Labour’s policies and told the protesters: “We’ve got your back.” Many farmers want a badger cull but the Welsh government refuses to introduce one. Who are the protesters? The campaign has not been organised by a farming union but is very much a grassroots movement with protests organised through social media and word of mouth. A Facebook group, Welsh farmers’ protests , has more than 12,000 members. What is the economic impact of the SFS? A report on the possible impact makes sobering reading. If there was 100% take-up it suggests it could lead to a 10.8% reduction in Welsh livestock numbers, an 11% cut in labour on Welsh farms – the equivalent of 5,500 jobs according to NFU Cymru – and a loss of millions of pounds to the industry. The NFU Cymru president, Aled Jones, called this a “shocking scenario” . Why are these measure being taken by the Welsh government? Farming is responsible for approximately 10% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and 47% of the UK’s methane emissions. Most of this is driven by livestock farming. Farming methods have also been responsible for large amounts of biodiversity loss. For example, in 2022 the UK farmland bird index was 60% below its 1970 value. Most of these biodiversity declines started in the 1970s as farming methods changed. Many farmers have begun to change this in recent years, switching to more organic practices, digging ponds for wildlife, planting trees and tending hedgerows. However, this change is not happening fast enough according to climate and nature experts, so the governments of the UK are changing their farming payments policies to reward restoring some farmland to nature. The Welsh government has argued its proposed SFS scheme would secure food production but also address the climate and nature emergencies. Ministers point out there have been 10 roadshows across Wales since January with more than 3,200 farmers spoken to about SFS. The consultation comes to an end on 7 March. What do the other parties say? Plenty. The Tory leader in Wales , Andrew RT Davies, said the party would put the SFS “in the bin where it belongs”, claiming Labour is against farmers and rural communities. As the farmers gathered at the Senedd, members were due to debate and vote on a motion brought by the Conservatives calling for the SFS to be scrapped, followed by a Plaid Cymru motion calling for urgent changes to the approach to bovine TB. How bad is this for Labour? Labour has governed in Wales since devolution but it has had a bad start to 2024. In January, junior doctors went on strike for the first time and hundreds protested on the steps of the Senedd, not far from the statue of Labour hero Aneurin Bevan, who spearheaded the foundation of the NHS. It is also still taking flak for introducing a 20mph speed limit across much of Wales. But the farmers’ protest may become even bigger. Is there any sign the government is listening? Yes. Hours before the protest, Drakeford and Griffiths announced initiatives designed to calm the farmers. On the SFS, they said they wanted to make sure woodland and habitat requirements do not make farms unviable and would carry out an “updated economic analysis”. They said they would consider an “evidence-based review” of alternative proposals to achieve carbon sequestration within the SFS – a signal that the tree-planting requirements may be eased. The ministers also said they would appoint a bovine TB technical advisory group and provide an additional £20m to help farmers tackle the issue of river pollution. They also reminded farmers that a new first minister would be in place next month, who would, no doubt, come to the issue with fresh eyes. What is the wider political context? It is a febrile time for the farming community, which has felt ignored as costs rise and they are asked to take extra environmental measures . At the same time, rural concerns are going to be a large part of the next general election, with the Conservatives in the rest of the UK worried about losing their countryside seats. For the first time, it looks like most of the rural constituencies in England will go Liberal Democrat and Labour. That’s probably why Rishi Sunak joined the farming protests on Friday. But another group is also trying to take advantage of farmers’ concerns – the No Farmers No Food campaign, which met Sunak, is attempting to draw a connection between unpopular aspects of farming policy and the net zero agenda in general. Its founder, James Melville, who is also a leading member of the Together Declaration , which began as an anti-Covid lockdown group, but pushes against various policies, from London’s ultra-low emission zone to net zero. The No Farmers No Food campaign calls for an end to an “obsession” with net zero, and has shared a conspiracy theory that climate policies are a route for the WEF to force farmers to give up their land so the human population is forced to eat bugs. The yellow No Farmers No Food banners are expected to be out in force at the protest, and it could be used as a recruitment opportunity for the anti-net zero campaign. The Welsh Conservatives have shared its campaign message on social media. Will the protests stop here? P
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Team Kieran or Team Pedro: who are you backing in the battle of the leading men?
And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian View image in fullscreen And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Team Kieran or Team Pedro: who are you backing in the battle of the leading men? This article is more than 1 year old In one corner, we have Kieran Culkin, the actor who rose from Succession B-lister to steal the show. In the other, we have the internet’s boyfriend Pedro Pascal, the star of The Last of Us. Who deserves more awards? A nd now, the Oscar for best naked dance through a stately home … Yes, the seemingly interminable “awards season” – as industry luvvies like to call it but real people mostly don’t – has finally entered its endgame. From early January’s Golden Globes to next weekend’s Oscars, it’s been two oxygen-hogging months of “noms”, “nods” and “snubs”; of red-carpet pose-striking and unfunny opening monologues; of gracious losers’ rictus grins and smug winners’ weepy speeches. One highlight of this year’s backslapping bonanza has been the blossoming frenemyship between Pedro Pascal and Kieran Culkin . The fortysomething actors – who play Joel Miller in The Last Of Us and Roman Roy in Succession, respectively – might be HBO stablemates but they’ve been pitted against each other on pretty much every shortlist. Forget Barbenheimer. The latest portmanteau rivalry on everyone’s lips is “Paskin”. View image in fullscreen Culkin and Pascal (with Arian Moayed, left) at the Emmys. Photograph: Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic for HBO & Max Their playful faux-feud started at the Golden Globes, when Culkin ended his acceptance speech for best actor in a TV drama by saying: “Suck it, Pedro!” At which point the camera turned to Pascal, who was sitting in the audience and pretending to cry. A week later, when Pascal attended the Emmys wearing a sling, he joked that his shoulder injury was due to “Kieran Culkin beating the shit out of me”. This time, the camera cut to Culkin, giving his sparring partner a deadpan death stare while everyone around him laughed. The bantz-packed bromance peaked with Pascal’s amusingly unprepared speech at the Screen Actors Guild awards last weekend. Collecting his prize for best male actor in a drama series, Pascal admitted that he had tucked into the complimentary booze because he had presumed Culkin would win: “I thought I could get drunk. I’m making a fool of myself.” Afterwards, he told the backstage interviewer Tan France that he was going to “make out” with Culkin at the afterparty as his revenge, adding: “He’s the greatest.” The pair then threatened to smell each other’s armpits (don’t ask), before hugging it out. It was enough to melt even the most hardened Hollywood-watchers’ heart. It’s a homoerotic romcom waiting to happen. With the TV portion of the awards blitz now over, it’s time to declare a victor in this battle of the box-set besties. MH Team Kieran View image in fullscreen Kieran Culkin as Roman Roy in Succession. Photograph: HBO He was the potty-mouthed slime puppy who provided approximately 50% of the laughs in Succession – and a hefty portion of its heart, too. Kieran Culkin hasn’t just scored a hat-trick of major wins (an Emmy, a Critics’ Choice award and a Golden Globe) but proved himself the undisputed don of the 2024 gong-giving circuit. When it swaggered on to our screens in 2018 in a blaze of F-bombs and grey cashmere, Jesse Armstrong’s sweary, super-rich saga was about “No 1 boy” Kendall Roy’s self-defeating desperation to inherit his dad’s business empire. The brattish junior sibling, Roman, was strictly B-list. “A toddler with a hard-on,” as sister Shiv put it. While Jeremy Strong went method to portray Kendall with such haunted intensity that it was often painful to watch, the deviant, charismatic “Romulus” emerged from his big bro’s shadow to become everyone’s favourite Roy-boy – even his tough-to-please dad’s. By the time Succession entered its fourth and final season, Roman the Showman had become its MVP. Culkin peeled away his character’s goofy exterior to lay bare the dysfunction beneath. All rheumy eyes and jittery mannerisms, he was bullied into firing his mentor and true love, Gerri. He manoeuvred a neo-fascist into the White House just for the lolz, before masochistically goading protesters into attacking him. He breezily insisted he had “pre-grieved” for Logan before proving that he totally hadn’t. Culminating in that raw funeral meltdown, Culkin delivered a visceral portrayal of grief – interspersed with caustic one-liners and licking blocks of cheese. He was rightly promoted from the “supporting” to “lead” actor categories for this year’s awards. Culkin’s mantelpiece now groans under the weight of three individual trophies, alongside several shared gongs for Succession’s ensemble. The lower-profile SAG awards bunging a late bauble to Pascal, total dude as he is, feels like a consolation prize by comparison. Culkin invented the whole “Paskin” subplot during a self-deprecating Golden Globes speech that began: “Sorry. Burping. Indigestion. Didn’t need to say that. This is a nice moment for me, but I’ve blown it already.” Asked on the red carpet about a potential Roman Roy spin-off, he correctly responded that it was “a horrible idea” – although he did impishly add that a sitcom about Cousin Greg could work. At the Critics’ Choice bash, he used up most of his stage time riffing about how his real-life wife, Jazz Charton, and Succession co-star Sarah Snook are obsessed with plucking out his ear hairs – but classily still found time to thank Succession’s camera operators by name. At the Emmys, Culkin gave his on-screen father Brian Cox a big whiskery smacker on the lips, before strolling on stage and insouciantly throwing his jacket to the floor because he “couldn’t do the button up”. He thanked his wife and their two children, before taking the opportunity to say: “Jazz, I want more. You said maybe, if I win.” A gone-too-far flourish worthy of Romey himself. Succession has now ascended to prestige TV heaven, whereas we haven’t seen the last of The Last of Us . Season two of the post-apocalyptic epic is about to go into production. Pascal’s time will come again, but this is our final chance to crown Waystar RoyCo’s incorrigible court jester. Arise, King Kieran of Culkin. Here’s a Rennie for that pesky indigestion. Suck that, Pedro. MH Team Pedro View image in fullscreen Pedro Pascal as Joel in The Last of Us. Photograph: Warner Media/HBO Watching Pedro Pascal’s eyes being gouged on Game of Thrones made the hearts of millions of television fans ache. None of us ever wanted to watch the beloved Chilean American star be defeated again. Not by a fungus-driven apocalypse, an evil intergalactic empire or a perfectly cast Culkin. While Succession was great – and that final episode featuring Kieran Culkin having his stitches ripped out before heading for a lonely martini was chef’s-kiss perfection – the crown of prestige television should be placed safely on Pedro’s head. What’s that Culkin? You are in an era-defining show? Try being the best thing in three of them. Post Covid, just about the last thing any of us wanted to do was to contemplate the futility of existence in a post-apocalyptic hellscape, but Pascal made this scenario appointment television, lighting up the screen with his very relatable dose of PTSD. Even though he was paired with the glorious Bella Ramsey, and a whole episode of The Last of Us sidelined them both in order to luxuriate in the tender love between Nick Offerman and Murray Bartlett, there was never any doubt who the lead actor was. Whether Pascal is riding a horse across a barren landscape in search of a cure, accusing the Succession star of beating him up at the Emmys or accepting a SAG after having had a few too many, he is the platonic ideal of MCE – main character energy. Meanwhile, Culkin has been part of a wonderful ensemble cast, and let’s face it, he may have accumulated a few more shiny statuettes this awards season but “lead actor”? Are we sure about that? Even when he told Pascal to “suck it” as he clasped his Golden Globe, the camera cut to dear Pedro, wearing a sling that coordinated perfectly with an embroidered Bottega Veneta turtleneck. Pascal, of course, feigned laughter then tears in a three-second reaction shot, highlighting his range and how eminently meme-able he is. With Barry, Succession and Curb Your Enthusiasm all coming to an end, in some respects Culkin’s and Succession’s ensemble awards feel like a figurative farewell to the golden age of television. But when SAG rightly handed Pascal his award on Sunday, it was a reminder that there is still lots of life in the medium yet. As long as we have actors willing to give their all to knotty, complicated stories then the small screen has a bright future. Succession was ultimately about dealing with the end of an empire, and the death of something that cannot be replaced. Conversely, Pascal in The Last of Us tells us something we urgently need to hear. That even after a pandemic, an actors’ strike, a fungal apocalypse and five episodes of The Idol, we should not abandon hope. Good times lie ahead, and even if our parents and HBO make the odd misstep, Pedro Pascal will save the day. LL Explore more on these topics Awards and prizes The Last of Us Pedro Pascal The Mandalorian Succession Star Wars Television features Share Reuse this content And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian View image in fullscreen And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Team Kieran or Team Pedro: who are you backing in the battle of the leading men? This article is more than 1 year old In one corner, we have Kieran Culkin, the actor who rose from Succession B-lister to steal the show. In the other, we have the internet’s boyfriend Pedro Pascal, the star of The Last of Us. Who deserves more awards? A nd now, the Oscar for best naked dance through a stately home … Yes, the seemingly interminable “awards season” – as industry luvvies like to call it but real people mostly don’t – has finally entered its endgame. From early January’s Golden Globes to next weekend’s Oscars, it’s been two oxygen-hogging months of “noms”, “nods” and “snubs”; of red-carpet pose-striking and unfunny opening monologues; of gracious losers’ rictus grins and smug winners’ weepy speeches. One highlight of this year’s backslapping bonanza has been the blossoming frenemyship between Pedro Pascal and Kieran Culkin . The fortysomething actors – who play Joel Miller in The Last Of Us and Roman Roy in Succession, respectively – might be HBO stablemates but they’ve been pitted against each other on pretty much every shortlist. Forget Barbenheimer. The latest portmanteau rivalry on everyone’s lips is “Paskin”. View image in fullscreen Culkin and Pascal (with Arian Moayed, left) at the Emmys. Photograph: Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic for HBO & Max Their playful faux-feud started at the Golden Globes, when Culkin ended his acceptance speech for best actor in a TV drama by saying: “Suck it, Pedro!” At which point the camera turned to Pascal, who was sitting in the audience and pretending to cry. A week later, when Pascal attended the Emmys wearing a sling, he joked that his shoulder injury was due to “Kieran Culkin beating the shit out of me”. This time, the camera cut to Culkin, giving his sparring partner a deadpan death stare while everyone around him laughed. The bantz-packed bromance peaked with Pascal’s amusingly unprepared speech at the Screen Actors Guild awards last weekend. Collecting his prize for best male actor in a drama series, Pascal admitted that he had tucked into the complimentary booze because he had presumed Culkin would win: “I thought I could get drunk. I’m making a fool of myself.” Afterwards, he told the backstage interviewer Tan France that he was going to “make out” with Culkin at the afterparty as his revenge, adding: “He’s the greatest.” The pair then threatened to smell each other’s armpits (don’t ask), before hugging it out. It was enough to melt even the most hardened Hollywood-watchers’ heart. It’s a homoerotic romcom waiting to happen. With the TV portion of the awards blitz now over, it’s time to declare a victor in this battle of the box-set besties. MH Team Kieran View image in fullscreen Kieran Culkin as Roman Roy in Succession. Photograph: HBO He was the potty-mouthed slime puppy who provided approximately 50% of the laughs in Succession – and a hefty portion of its heart, too. Kieran Culkin hasn’t just scored a hat-trick of major wins (an Emmy, a Critics’ Choice award and a Golden Globe) but proved himself the undisputed don of the 2024 gong-giving circuit. When it swaggered on to our screens in 2018 in a blaze of F-bombs and grey cashmere, Jesse Armstrong’s sweary, super-rich saga was about “No 1 boy” Kendall Roy’s self-defeating desperation to inherit his dad’s business empire. The brattish junior sibling, Roman, was strictly B-list. “A toddler with a hard-on,” as sister Shiv put it. While Jeremy Strong went method to portray Kendall with such haunted intensity that it was often painful to watch, the deviant, charismatic “Romulus” emerged from his big bro’s shadow to become everyone’s favourite Roy-boy – even his tough-to-please dad’s. By the time Succession entered its fourth and final season, Roman the Showman had become its MVP. Culkin peeled away his character’s goofy exterior to lay bare the dysfunction beneath. All rheumy eyes and jittery mannerisms, he was bullied into firing his mentor and true love, Gerri. He manoeuvred a neo-fascist into the White House just for the lolz, before masochistically goading protesters into attacking him. He breezily insisted he had “pre-grieved” for Logan before proving that he totally hadn’t. Culminating in that raw funeral meltdown, Culkin delivered a visceral portrayal of grief – interspersed with caustic one-liners and licking blocks of cheese. He was rightly promoted from the “supporting” to “lead” actor categories for this year’s awards. Culkin’s mantelpiece now groans under the weight of three individual trophies, alongside several shared gongs for Succession’s ensemble. The lower-profile SAG awards bunging a late bauble to Pascal, total dude as he is, feels like a consolation prize by comparison. Culkin invented the whole “Paskin” subplot during a self-deprecating Golden Globes speech that began: “Sorry. Burping. Indigestion. Didn’t need to say that. This is a nice moment for me, but I’ve blown it already.” Asked on the red carpet about a potential Roman Roy spin-off, he correctly responded that it was “a horrible idea” – although he did impishly add that a sitcom about Cousin Greg could work. At the Critics’ Choice bash, he used up most of his stage time riffing about how his real-life wife, Jazz Charton, and Succession co-star Sarah Snook are obsessed with plucking out his ear hairs – but classily still found time to thank Succession’s camera operators by name. At the Emmys, Culkin gave his on-screen father Brian Cox a big whiskery smacker on the lips, before strolling on stage and insouciantly throwing his jacket to the floor because he “couldn’t do the button up”. He thanked his wife and their two children, before taking the opportunity to say: “Jazz, I want more. You said maybe, if I win.” A gone-too-far flourish worthy of Romey himself. Succession has now ascended to prestige TV heaven, whereas we haven’t seen the last of The Last of Us . Season two of the post-apocalyptic epic is about to go into production. Pascal’s time will come again, but this is our final chance to crown Waystar RoyCo’s incorrigible court jester. Arise, King Kieran of Culkin. Here’s a Rennie for that pesky indigestion. Suck that, Pedro. MH Team Pedro View image in fullscreen Pedro Pascal as Joel in The Last of Us. Photograph: Warner Media/HBO Watching Pedro Pascal’s eyes being gouged on Game of Thrones made the hearts of millions of television fans ache. None of us ever wanted to watch the beloved Chilean American star be defeated again. Not by a fungus-driven apocalypse, an evil intergalactic empire or a perfectly cast Culkin. While Succession was great – and that final episode featuring Kieran Culkin having his stitches ripped out before heading for a lonely martini was chef’s-kiss perfection – the crown of prestige television should be placed safely on Pedro’s head. What’s that Culkin? You are in an era-defining show? Try being the best thing in three of them. Post Covid, just about the last thing any of us wanted to do was to contemplate the futility of existence in a post-apocalyptic hellscape, but Pascal made this scenario appointment television, lighting up the screen with his very relatable dose of PTSD. Even though he was paired with the glorious Bella Ramsey, and a whole episode of The Last of Us sidelined them both in order to luxuriate in the tender love between Nick Offerman and Murray Bartlett, there was never any doubt who the lead actor was. Whether Pascal is riding a horse across a barren landscape in search of a cure, accusing the Succession star of beating him up at the Emmys or accepting a SAG after having had a few too many, he is the platonic ideal of MCE – main character energy. Meanwhile, Culkin has been part of a wonderful ensemble cast, and let’s face it, he may have accumulated a few more shiny statuettes this awards season but “lead actor”? Are we sure about that? Even when he told Pascal to “suck it” as he clasped his Golden Globe, the camera cut to dear Pedro, wearing a sling that coordinated perfectly with an embroidered Bottega Veneta turtleneck. Pascal, of course, feigned laughter then tears in a three-second reaction shot, highlighting his range and how eminently meme-able he is. With Barry, Succession and Curb Your Enthusiasm all coming to an end, in some respects Culkin’s and Succession’s ensemble awards feel like a figurative farewell to the golden age of television. But when SAG rightly handed Pascal his award on Sunday, it was a reminder that there is still lots of life in the medium yet. As long as we have actors willing to give their all to knotty, complicated stories then the small screen has a bright future. Succession was ultimately about dealing with the end of an empire, and the death of something that cannot be replaced. Conversely, Pascal in The Last of Us tells us something we urgently need to hear. That even after a pandemic, an actors’ strike, a fungal apocalypse and five episodes of The Idol, we should not abandon hope. Good times lie ahead, and even if our parents and HBO make the odd misstep, Pedro Pascal will save the day. LL Explore more on these topics Awards and prizes The Last of Us Pedro Pascal The Mandalorian Succession Star Wars Television features Share Reuse this content And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian View image in fullscreen And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian View image in fullscreen And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian View image in fullscreen And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian View image in fullscreen And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian And the award goes to … Pedro or Kieran? Illustration: Guardian Design/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Team Kieran or Team Pedro: who are you backing in the battle of the leading men? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Team Kieran or Team Pedro: who are you backing in the battle of the leading men? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Team Kieran or Team Pedro: who are you backing in the battle of the leading men? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old In one corner, we have Kieran Culkin, the actor who rose from Succession B-lister to steal the show. In the other, we have the internet’s boyfriend Pedro Pascal, the star of The Last of Us. Who deserves more awards? In one corner, we have Kieran Culkin, the actor who rose from Succession B-lister to steal the show. In the other, we have the internet’s boyfriend Pedro Pascal, the star of The Last of Us. Who deserves more awards? In one corner, we have Kieran Culkin, the actor who rose from Succession B-lister to steal the show. In the other, we have the internet’s boyfriend Pedro Pascal, the star of The Last of Us. Who deserves more awards? A nd now, the Oscar for best naked dance through a stately home … Yes, the seemingly interminable “awards season” – as industry luvvies like to call it but real people mostly don’t – has finally entered its endgame. From early January’s Golden Globes to next weekend’s Oscars, it’s been two oxygen-hogging months of “noms”, “nods” and “snubs”; of red-carpet pose-striking and unfunny opening monologues; of gracious losers’ rictus grins and smug winners’ weepy speeches. One highlight of this year’s backslapping bonanza has been the blossoming frenemyship between Pedro Pascal and Kieran Culkin . The fortysomething actors – who play Joel Miller in The Last Of Us and Roman Roy in Succession, respectively – might be HBO stablemates but they’ve been pitted against each other on pretty much every shortlist. Forget Barbenheimer. The latest portmanteau rivalry on everyone’s lips is “Paskin”. View image in fullscreen Culkin and Pascal (with Arian Moayed, left) at the Emmys. Photograph: Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic for HBO & Max Their playful faux-feud started at the Golden Globes, when Culkin ended his acceptance speech for best actor in a TV drama by saying: “Suck it, Pedro!” At which point the camera turned to Pascal, who was sitting in the audience and pretending to cry. A week later, when Pascal attended the Emmys wearing a sling, he joked that his shoulder injury was due to “Kieran Culkin beating the shit out of me”. This time, the camera cut to Culkin, giving his sparring partner a deadpan death stare while everyone around him laughed. The bantz-packed bromance peaked with Pascal’s amusingly unprepared speech at the Screen Actors Guild awards last weekend. Collecting his prize for best male actor in a drama series, Pascal admitted that he had tucked into the complimentary booze because he had presumed Culkin would win: “I thought I could get drunk. I’m making a fool of myself.” Afterwards, he told the backstage interviewer Tan France that he was going to “make out” with Culkin at the afterparty as his revenge, adding: “He’s the greatest.” The pair then threatened to smell each other’s armpits (don’t ask), before hugging it out. It was enough to melt even the most hardened Hollywood-watchers’ heart. It’s a homoerotic romcom waiting to happen. With the TV portion of the awards blitz now over, it’s time to declare a victor in this battle of the box-set besties. MH Team Kieran View image in fullscreen Kieran Culkin as Roman Roy in Succession. Photograph: HBO He was the potty-mouthed slime puppy who provided approximately 50% of the laughs in Succession – and a hefty portion of its heart, too. Kieran Culkin hasn’t just scored a hat-trick of major wins (an Emmy, a Critics’ Choice award and a Golden Globe) but proved himself the undisputed don of the 2024 gong-giving circuit. When it swaggered on to our screens in 2018 in a blaze of F-bombs and grey cashmere, Jesse Armstrong’s sweary, super-rich saga was about “No 1 boy” Kendall Roy’s self-defeating desperation to inherit his dad’s business empire. The brattish junior sibling, Roman, was strictly B-list. “A toddler with a hard-on,” as sister Shiv put it. While Jeremy Strong went method to portray Kendall with such haunted intensity that it was often painful to watch, the deviant, charismatic “Romulus” emerged from his big bro’s shadow to become everyone’s favourite Roy-boy – even his tough-to-please dad’s. By the time Succession entered its fourth and final season, Roman the Showman had become its MVP. Culkin peeled away his character’s goofy exterior to lay bare the dysfunction beneath. All rheumy eyes and jittery mannerisms, he was bullied into firing his mentor and true love, Gerri. He manoeuvred a neo-fascist into the White House just for the lolz, before masochistically goading protesters into attacking him. He breezily insisted he had “pre-grieved” for Logan before proving that he totally hadn’t. Culminating in that raw funeral meltdown, Culkin delivered a visceral portrayal of grief – interspersed with caustic one-liners and licking blocks of cheese. He was rightly promoted from the “supporting” to “lead” actor categories for this year’s awards. Culkin’s mantelpiece now groans under the weight of three individual trophies, alongside several shared gongs for Succession’s ensemble. The lower-profile SAG awards bunging a late bauble to Pascal, total dude as he is, feels like a consolation prize by comparison. Culkin invented the whole “Paskin” subplot during a self-deprecating Golden Globes speech that began: “Sorry. Burping. Indigestion. Didn’t need to say that. This is a nice moment for me, but I’ve blown it already.” Asked on the red carpet about a potential Roman Roy spin-off, he correctly responded that it was “a horrible idea” – although he did impishly add that a sitcom about Cousin Greg could work. At the Critics’ Choice bash, he used up most of his stage time riffing about how his real-life wife, Jazz Charton, and Succession co-star Sarah Snook are obsessed with plucking out his ear hairs – but classily still found time to thank Succession’s camera operators by name. At the Emmys, Culkin gave his on-screen father Brian Cox a big whiskery smacker on the lips, before strolling on stage and insouciantly throwing his jacket to the floor because he “couldn’t do the button up”. He thanked his wife and their two children, before taking the opportunity to say: “Jazz, I want more. You said maybe, if I win.” A gone-too-far flourish worthy of Romey himself. Succession has now ascended to prestige TV heaven, whereas we haven’t seen the last of The Last of Us . Season two of the post-apocalyptic epic is about to go into production. Pascal’s time will come again, but this is our final chance to crown Waystar RoyCo’s incorrigible court jester. Arise, King Kieran of Culkin. Here’s a Rennie for that pesky indigestion. Suck that, Pedro. MH Team Pedro View image in fullscreen Pedro Pascal as Joel in The Last of Us. Photograph: Warner Media/HBO Watching Pedro Pascal’s eyes being gouged on Game of Thrones made the hearts of millions of television fans ache. None of us ever wanted to watch the beloved Chilean American star be defeated again. Not by a fungus-driven apocalypse, an evil intergalactic empire or a perfectly cast Culkin. While Succession was great – and that final episode featuring Kieran Culkin having his stitches ripped out before heading for a lonely martini was chef’s-kiss perfection – the crown of prestige television should be placed safely on Pedro’s head. What’s that Culkin? You are in an era-defining show? Try being the best thing in three of them. Post Covid, just about the last thing any of us wanted to do was to contemplate the futility of existence in a post-apocalyptic hellscape, but Pascal made this scenario appointment television, lighting up the screen with his very relatable dose of PTSD. Even though he was paired with the glorious Bella Ramsey, and a whole episode of The Last of Us sidelined them both in order to luxuriate in the tender love between Nick Offerman and Murray Bartlett, there was never any doubt who the lead actor was. Whether Pascal is riding a horse across a barren landscape in search of a cure, accusing the Succession star of beating him up at the Emmys or accepting a SAG after having had a few too many, he is the platonic ideal of MCE – main character energy. Meanwhile, Culkin has been part of a wonderful ensemble cast, and let’s face it, he may have accumulated a few more shiny statuettes this awards season but “lead actor”? Are we sure about that? Even when he told Pascal to “suck it” as he clasped his Golden Globe, the camera cut to dear Pedro, wearing a sling that coordinated perfectly with an embroidered Bottega Veneta turtleneck. Pascal, of course, feigned laughter then tears in a three-second reaction shot, highlighting his range and how eminently meme-able he is. With Barry, Succession and Curb Your Enthusiasm all coming to an end, in some respects Culkin’s and Succession’s ensemble awards feel like a figurative farewell to the golden age of television. But when SAG rightly handed Pascal his award on Sunday, it was a reminder that there is still lots of life in the medium yet. As long as we have actors willing to give their all to knotty, complicated stories then the small screen has a bright future. Succession was ultimately about dealing with the end of an empire, and the death of something that cannot be replaced. Conversely, Pascal in The Last of Us tells us something we urgently need to hear. That even after a pandemic, an actors’ strike, a fungal apocalypse and five episodes of The Idol, we should not abandon hope. Good times lie ahead, and even if our parents and HBO make the odd misstep, Pedro Pascal will save the day. LL Explore more on these topics Awards and prizes The Last of Us Pedro Pascal The Mandalorian Succession Star Wars Television features Share Reuse this content A nd now, the Oscar for best naked dance through a stately home … Yes, the seemingly interminable “awards season” – as industry luvvies like to call it but real people mostly don’t – has finally entered its endgame. From early January’s Golden Globes to next weekend’s Oscars, it’s been two oxygen-hogging months of “noms”, “nods” and “snubs”; of red-carpet pose-striking and unfunny opening monologues; of gracious losers’ rictus grins and smug winners’ weepy speeches. One highlight of this year’s backslapping bonanza has been the blossoming frenemyship between Pedro Pascal and Kieran Culkin . The fortysomething actors – who play Joel Miller in The Last Of Us and Roman Roy in Succession, respectively – might be HBO stablemates but they’ve been pitted against each other on pretty much every shortlist. Forget Barbenheimer. The latest portmanteau rivalry on everyone’s lips is “Paskin”. View image in fullscreen Culkin and Pascal (with Arian Moayed, left) at the Emmys. Photograph: Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic for HBO & Max Their playful faux-feud started at the Golden Globes, when Culkin ended his acceptance speech for best actor in a TV drama by saying: “Suck it, Pedro!” At which point the camera turned to Pascal, who was sitting in the audience and pretending to cry. A week later, when Pascal attended the Emmys wearing a sling, he joked that his shoulder injury was due to “Kieran Culkin beating the shit out of me”. This time, the camera cut to Culkin, giving his sparring partner a deadpan death stare while everyone around him laughed. The bantz-packed bromance peaked with Pascal’s amusingly unprepared speech at the Screen Actors Guild awards last weekend. Collecting his prize for best male actor in a drama series, Pascal admitted that he had tucked into the complimentary booze because he had presumed Culkin would win: “I thought I could get drunk. I’m making a fool of myself.” Afterwards, he told the backstage interviewer Tan France that he was going to “make out” with Culkin at the afterparty as his revenge, adding: “He’s the greatest.” The pair then threatened to smell each other’s armpits (don’t ask), before hugging it out. It was enough to melt even the most hardened Hollywood-watchers’ heart. It’s a homoerotic romcom waiting to happen. With the TV portion of the awards blitz now over, it’s time to declare a victor in this battle of the box-set besties. MH Team Kieran View image in fullscreen Kieran Culkin as Roman Roy in Succession. Photograph: HBO He was the potty-mouthed slime puppy who provided approximately 50% of the laughs in Succession – and a hefty portion of its heart, too. Kieran Culkin hasn’t just scored a hat-trick of major wins (an Emmy, a Critics’ Choice award and a Golden Globe) but proved himself the undisputed don of the 2024 gong-giving circuit. When it swaggered on to our screens in 2018 in a blaze of F-bombs and grey cashmere, Jesse Armstrong’s sweary, super-rich saga was about “No 1 boy” Kendall Roy’s self-defeating desperation to inherit his dad’s business empire. The brattish junior sibling, Roman, was strictly B-list. “A toddler with a hard-on,” as sister Shiv put it. While Jeremy Strong went method to portray Kendall with such haunted intensity that it was often painful to watch, the deviant, charismatic “Romulus” emerged from his big bro’s shadow to become everyone’s favourite Roy-boy – even his tough-to-please dad’s. By the time Succession entered its fourth and final season, Roman the Showman had become its MVP. Culkin peeled away his character’s goofy exterior to lay bare the dysfunction beneath. All rheumy eyes and jittery mannerisms, he was bullied into firing his mentor and true love, Gerri. He manoeuvred a neo-fascist into the White House just for the lolz, before masochistically goading protesters into attacking him. He breezily insisted he had “pre-grieved” for Logan before proving that he totally hadn’t. Culminating in that raw funeral meltdown, Culkin delivered a visceral portrayal of grief – interspersed with caustic one-liners and licking blocks of cheese. He was rightly promoted from the “supporting” to “lead” actor categories for this year’s awards. Culkin’s mantelpiece now groans under the weight of three individual trophies, alongside several shared gongs for Succession’s ensemble. The lower-profile SAG awards bunging a late bauble to Pascal, total dude as he is, feels like a consolation prize by comparison. Culkin invented the whole “Paskin” subplot during a self-deprecating Golden Globes speech that began: “Sorry. Burping. Indigestion. Didn’t need to say that. This is a nice moment for me, but I’ve blown it already.” Asked on the red carpet about a potential Roman Roy spin-off, he correctly responded that it was “a horrible idea” – although he did impishly add that a sitcom about Cousin Greg could work. At the Critics’ Choice bash, he used up most of his stage time riffing about how his real-life wife, Jazz Charton, and Succession co-star Sarah Snook are obsessed with plucking out his ear hairs – but classily still found time to thank Succession’s camera operators by name. At the Emmys, Culkin gave his on-screen father Brian Cox a big whiskery smacker on the lips, before strolling on stage and insouciantly throwing his jacket to the floor because he “couldn’t do the button up”. He thanked his wife and their two children, before taking the opportunity to say: “Jazz, I want more. You said maybe, if I win.” A gone-too-far flourish worthy of Romey himself. Succession has now ascended to prestige TV heaven, whereas we haven’t seen the last of The Last of Us . Season two of the post-apocalyptic epic is about to go into production. Pascal’s time will come again, but this is our final chance to crown Waystar RoyCo’s incorrigible court jester. Arise, King Kieran of Culkin. Here’s a Rennie for that pesky indigestion. Suck that, Pedro. MH Team Pedro View image in fullscreen Pedro Pascal as Joel in The Last of Us. Photograph: Warner Media/HBO Watching Pedro Pascal’s eyes being gouged on Game of Thrones made the hearts of millions of television fans ache. None of us ever wanted to watch the beloved Chilean American star be defeated again. Not by a fungus-driven apocalypse, an evil intergalactic empire or a perfectly cast Culkin. While Succession was great – and that final episode featuring Kieran Culkin having his stitches ripped out before heading for a lonely martini was chef’s-kiss perfection – the crown of prestige television should be placed safely on Pedro’s head. What’s that Culkin? You are in an era-defining show? Try being the best thing in three of them. Post Covid, just about the last thing any of us wanted to do was to contemplate the futility of existence in a post-apocalyptic hellscape, but Pascal made this scenario appointment television, lighting up the screen with his very relatable dose of PTSD. Even though he was paired with the glorious Bella Ramsey, and a whole episode of The Last of Us sidelined them both in order to luxuriate in the tender love between Nick Offerman and Murray Bartlett, there was never any doubt who the lead actor was. Whether Pascal is riding a horse across a barren landscape in search of a cure, accusing the Succession star of beating him up at the Emmys or accepting a SAG after having had a few too many, he is the platonic ideal of MCE – main character energy. Meanwhile, Culkin has been part of a wonderful ensemble cast, and let’s face it, he may have accumulated a few more shiny statuettes this awards season but “lead actor”? Are we sure about that? Even when he told Pascal to “suck it” as he clasped his Golden Globe, the camera cut to dear Pedro, wearing a sling that coordinated perfectly with an embroidered Bottega Veneta turtleneck. Pascal, of course, feigned laughter then tears in a three-second reaction shot, highlighting his range and how eminently meme-able he is. With Barry, Succession and Curb Your Enthusiasm all coming to an end, in some respects Culkin’s and Succession’s ensemble awards feel like a figurative farewell to the golden age of television. But when SAG rightly handed Pascal his award on Sunday, it was a reminder that there is still lots of life in the medium yet. As long as we have actors willing to give their all to knotty, complicated stories then the small screen has a bright future. Succession was ultimately about dealing with the end of an empire, and the death of something that cannot be replaced. Conversely, Pascal in The Last of Us tells us something we urgently need to hear. That even after a pandemic, an actors’ strike, a fungal apocalypse and five episodes of The Idol, we should not abandon hope. Good times lie ahead, and even if our parents and HBO make the odd misstep, Pedro Pascal will save the day. LL Explore more on these topics Awards and prizes The Last of Us Pedro Pascal The Mandalorian Succession Star Wars Television features Share Reuse this content A nd now, the Oscar for best naked dance through a stately home … Yes, the seemingly interminable “awards season” – as industry luvvies like to call it but real people mostly don’t – has finally entered its endgame. From early January’s Golden Globes to next weekend’s Oscars, it’s been two oxygen-hogging months of “noms”, “nods” and “snubs”; of red-carpet pose-striking and unfunny opening monologues; of gracious losers’ rictus grins and smug winners’ weepy speeches. One highlight of this year’s backslapping bonanza has been the blossoming frenemyship between Pedro Pascal and Kieran Culkin . The fortysomething actors – who play Joel Miller in The Last Of Us and Roman Roy in Succession, respectively – might be HBO stablemates but they’ve been pitted against each other on pretty much every shortlist. Forget Barbenheimer. The latest portmanteau rivalry on everyone’s lips is “Paskin”. View image in fullscreen Culkin and Pascal (with Arian Moayed, left) at the Emmys. Photograph: Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic for HBO & Max Their playful faux-feud started at the Golden Globes, when Culkin ended his acceptance speech for best actor in a TV drama by saying: “Suck it, Pedro!” At which point the camera turned to Pascal, who was sitting in the audience and pretending to cry. A week later, when Pascal attended the Emmys wearing a sling, he joked that his shoulder injury was due to “Kieran Culkin beating the shit out of me”. This time, the camera cut to Culkin, giving his sparring partner a deadpan death stare while everyone around him laughed. The bantz-packed bromance peaked with Pascal’s amusingly unprepared speech at the Screen Actors Guild awards last weekend. Collecting his prize for best male actor in a drama series, Pascal admitted that he had tucked into the complimentary booze because he had presumed Culkin would win: “I thought I could get drunk. I’m making a fool of myself.” Afterwards, he told the backstage interviewer Tan France that he was going to “make out” with Culkin at the afterparty as his revenge, adding: “He’s the greatest.” The pair then threatened to smell each other’s armpits (don’t ask), before hugging it out. It was enough to melt even the most hardened Hollywood-watchers’ heart. It’s a homoerotic romcom waiting to happen. With the TV portion of the awards blitz now over, it’s time to declare a victor in this battle of the box-set besties. MH Team Kieran View image in fullscreen Kieran Culkin as Roman Roy in Succession. Photograph: HBO He was the potty-mouthed slime puppy who provided approximately 50% of the laughs in Succession – and a hefty portion of its heart, too. Kieran Culkin hasn’t just scored a hat-trick of major wins (an Emmy, a Critics’ Choice award and a Golden Globe) but proved himself the undisputed don of the 2024 gong-giving circuit. When it swaggered on to our screens in 2018 in a blaze of F-bombs and grey cashmere, Jesse Armstrong’s sweary, super-rich saga was about “No 1 boy” Kendall Roy’s self-defeating desperation to inherit his dad’s business empire. The brattish junior sibling, Roman, was strictly B-list. “A toddler with a hard-on,” as sister Shiv put it. While Jeremy Strong went method to portray Kendall with such haunted intensity that it was often painful to watch, the deviant, charismatic “Romulus” emerged from his big bro’s shadow to become everyone’s favourite Roy-boy – even his tough-to-please dad’s. By the time Succession entered its fourth and final season, Roman the Showman had become its MVP. Culkin peeled away his character’s goofy exterior to lay bare the dysfunction beneath. All rheumy eyes and jittery mannerisms, he was bullied into firing his mentor and true love, Gerri. He manoeuvred a neo-fascist into the White House just for the lolz, before masochistically goading protesters into attacking him. He breezily insisted he had “pre-grieved” for Logan before proving that he totally hadn’t. Culminating in that raw funeral meltdown, Culkin delivered a visceral portrayal of grief – interspersed with caustic one-liners and licking blocks of cheese. He was rightly promoted from the “supporting” to “lead” actor categories for this year’s awards. Culkin’s mantelpiece now groans under the weight of three individual trophies, alongside several shared gongs for Succession’s ensemble. The lower-profile SAG awards bunging a late bauble to Pascal, total dude as he is, feels like a consolation prize by comparison. Culkin invented the whole “Paskin” subplot during a self-deprecating Golden Globes speech that began: “Sorry. Burping. Indigestion. Didn’t need to say that. This is a nice moment for me, but I’ve blown it already.” Asked on the red carpet about a potential Roman Roy spin-off, he correctly responded that it was “a horrible idea” – although he did impishly add that a sitcom about Cousin Greg could work. At the Critics’ Choice bash, he used up most of his stage time riffing about how his real-life wife, Jazz Charton, and Succession co-star Sarah Snook are obsessed with plucking out his ear hairs – but classily still found time to thank Succession’s camera operators by name. At the Emmys, Culkin gave his on-screen father Brian Cox a big whiskery smacker on the lips, before strolling on stage and insouciantly throwing his jacket to the floor because he “couldn’t do the button up”. He thanked his wife and their two children, before taking the opportunity to say: “Jazz, I want more. You said maybe, if I win.” A gone-too-far flourish worthy of Romey himself. Succession has now ascended to prestige TV heaven, whereas we haven’t seen the last of The Last of Us . Season two of the post-apocalyptic epic is about to go into production. Pascal’s time will come again, but this is our final chance to crown Waystar RoyCo’s incorrigible court jester. Arise, King Kieran of Culkin. Here’s a Rennie for that pesky indigestion. Suck that, Pedro. MH Team Pedro View image in fullscreen Pedro Pascal as Joel in The Last of Us. Photograph: Warner Media/HBO Watching Pedro Pascal’s eyes being gouged on Game of Thrones made the hearts of millions of television fans ache. None of us ever wanted to watch the beloved Chilean American star be defeated again. Not by a fungus-driven apocalypse, an evil intergalactic empire or a perfectly cast Culkin. While Succession was great – and that final episode featuring Kieran Culkin having his stitches ripped out before heading for a lonely martini was chef’s-kiss perfection – the crown of prestige television should be placed safely on Pedro’s head. What’s that Culkin? You are in an era-defining show? Try being the best thing in three of them. Post Covid, just about the last thing any of us wanted to do was to contemplate the futility of existence in a post-apocalyptic hellscape, but Pascal made this scenario appointment television, lighting up the screen with his very relatable dose of PTSD. Even though he was paired with the glorious Bella Ramsey, and a whole episode of The Last of Us sidelined them both in order to luxuriate in the tender love between Nick Offerman and Murray Bartlett, there was never any doubt who the lead actor was. Whether Pascal is riding a horse across a barren landscape in search of a cure, accusing the Succession star of beating him up at the Emmys or accepting a SAG after having had a few too many, he is the platonic ideal of MCE – main character energy. Meanwhile, Culkin has been part of a wonderful ensemble cast, and let’s face it, he may have accumulated a few more shiny statuettes this awards season but “lead actor”? Are we sure about that? Even when he told Pascal to “suck it” as he clasped his Golden Globe, the camera cut to dear Pedro, wearing a sling that coordinated perfectly with an embroidered Bottega Veneta turtleneck. Pascal, of course, feigned laughter then tears in a three-second reaction shot, highlighting his range and how eminently meme-able he is. With Barry, Succession and Curb Your Enthusiasm all coming to an end, in some respects Culkin’s and Succession’s ensemble awards feel like a figurative farewell to the golden age of television. But when SAG rightly handed Pascal his award on Sunday, it was a reminder that there is still lots of life in the medium yet. As long as we have actors willing to give their all to knotty, complicated stories then the small screen has a bright future. Succession was ultimately about dealing with the end of an empire, and the death of something that cannot be replaced. Conversely, Pascal in The Last of Us tells us something we urgently need to hear. That even after a pandemic, an actors’ strike, a fungal apocalypse and five episodes of The Idol, we should not abandon hope. Good times lie ahead, and even if our parents and HBO make the odd misstep, Pedro Pascal will save the day. LL A nd now, the Oscar for best naked dance through a stately home … Yes, the seemingly interminable “awards season” – as industry luvvies like to call it but real people mostly don’t – has finally entered its endgame. From early January’s Golden Globes to next weekend’s Oscars, it’s been two oxygen-hogging months of “noms”, “nods” and “snubs”; of red-carpet pose-striking and unfunny opening monologues; of gracious losers’ rictus grins and smug winners’ weepy speeches. One highlight of this year’s backslapping bonanza has been the blossoming frenemyship between Pedro Pascal and Kieran Culkin . The fortysomething actors – who play Joel Miller in The Last Of Us and Roman Roy in Succession, respectively – might be HBO stablemates but they’ve been pitted against each other on pretty much every shortlist. Forget Barbenheimer. The latest portmanteau rivalry on everyone’s lips is “Paskin”. View image in fullscreen Culkin and Pascal (with Arian Moayed, left) at the Emmys. Photograph: Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic for HBO & Max Their playful faux-feud started at the Golden Globes, when Culkin ended his acceptance speech for best actor in a TV drama by saying: “Suck it, Pedro!” At which point the camera tu
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
European nations must end repression of peaceful climate protest, says UN expert
Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old European nations must end repression of peaceful climate protest, says UN expert This article is more than 1 year old Nations should be cutting emissions to meet Paris agreement, says Michel Forst after year-long inquiry European nations must end the repression and criminalisation of peaceful protest and urgently take action to cut emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders has said. After a year-long inquiry that included gathering evidence from the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Michel Forst said the repression faced by peaceful environmental activists was a major threat to democracy and human rights. All of the nations inspected are party to the Aarhus convention, which states that peaceful environmental protest is a legitimate exercise of the public’s right to participate in decision-making and that those engaged in it must be protected. But Forst said that across Europe the response to peaceful environmental protest was to repress rather than to enable and protect. “The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing and that scientists have been documenting for decades cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalised for it,” he said. “The only legitimate response to peaceful environmental activism and civil disobedience at this point is that the authorities, the media and the public realise how essential it is for us all to listen to what environmental defenders have to say.” Nations should be urgently cutting emissions to meet the Paris agreement, acting to restore 30% of all degraded ecosystems by 2030 and working to substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from air pollution. Forst said the failure of European nations to act urgently would lead to more direct-action protest. “To date, governments continue to take decisions that directly contradict the clear and urgent recommendations of scientists,” he said. Forst said the parts of the media and some politicians across Europe were criminalising environmental activism and labelling it a “terrorist threat”. He highlighted the 2023 European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT), which features environmental activism in its entries on current “extremism”. “Worryingly, the report classifies roadblocks and the occupation of bank buildings or airports as extremism and appears to take the view that being worried about climate change is an extremist viewpoint,” he said. In Spain, the 2022 report of the public prosecutor’s office listed Extinction Rebellion under “international terrorism”. New legislation in many countries, including the UK’s 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the 2023 Public Order Act, a so called “eco-vandalism” law in Italy and legislation in Germany that forbids any form of peaceful protest including sit-ins, was repressive towards peaceful protesters, he said. “By categorising environmental activism as a potential terrorist threat, by limiting freedom of expression and by criminalising certain forms of protests and protesters, these legislative and policy changes contribute to the shrinking of the civic space and seriously threaten the vitality of democratic societies.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion During his inquiry Forst received several reports of police harassment towards peaceful climate protesters. In Portugal, peaceful protesters had been arrested and detained by the police for “disruption of traffic” after taking part in a protest legally, with its itinerary notified to the authorities in advance. In France, people who tried to join an authorised demonstration had been subjected to widespread identity checks, vehicle searches and confiscation of their personal items by the police. In addition, journalists covering climate protests have been harassed and arrested across Europe, including in the UK and Poland. In Sweden, a journalist was arrested at a climate protest, subjected to a full strip-search at the police station, held in police custody for six hours and had their equipment confiscated, Forst said. He said he had recorded countless examples of police brutality. These included shoving and pushing protesters and using “pain grips” to deliberately inflict intense pain. In Austria, Finland, France and the Netherlands, protesters including children have been pepper-sprayed, and in the Netherlands police have used water cannon against non-violent protesters. Several countries are adopting measures for peaceful demonstrators that are also used against organised criminals. These include early morning raids by counter-terrorism units and the use of undercover police to infiltrate groups. Forst said states had international obligations related to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association and they must abide by these legal duties in their response to environmental protest. He said states had to address the root causes of environmental mobilisation by taking action to address the triple environmental crises of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. Forst’s report was released as the appeal court for England and Wales considers an application from the attorney general to remove one of the last remaining legal defences for protesters engaged in acts of criminal damage. The judges are due to give their ruling in the coming weeks. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest Europe news Share Reuse this content Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old European nations must end repression of peaceful climate protest, says UN expert This article is more than 1 year old Nations should be cutting emissions to meet Paris agreement, says Michel Forst after year-long inquiry European nations must end the repression and criminalisation of peaceful protest and urgently take action to cut emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders has said. After a year-long inquiry that included gathering evidence from the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Michel Forst said the repression faced by peaceful environmental activists was a major threat to democracy and human rights. All of the nations inspected are party to the Aarhus convention, which states that peaceful environmental protest is a legitimate exercise of the public’s right to participate in decision-making and that those engaged in it must be protected. But Forst said that across Europe the response to peaceful environmental protest was to repress rather than to enable and protect. “The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing and that scientists have been documenting for decades cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalised for it,” he said. “The only legitimate response to peaceful environmental activism and civil disobedience at this point is that the authorities, the media and the public realise how essential it is for us all to listen to what environmental defenders have to say.” Nations should be urgently cutting emissions to meet the Paris agreement, acting to restore 30% of all degraded ecosystems by 2030 and working to substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from air pollution. Forst said the failure of European nations to act urgently would lead to more direct-action protest. “To date, governments continue to take decisions that directly contradict the clear and urgent recommendations of scientists,” he said. Forst said the parts of the media and some politicians across Europe were criminalising environmental activism and labelling it a “terrorist threat”. He highlighted the 2023 European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT), which features environmental activism in its entries on current “extremism”. “Worryingly, the report classifies roadblocks and the occupation of bank buildings or airports as extremism and appears to take the view that being worried about climate change is an extremist viewpoint,” he said. In Spain, the 2022 report of the public prosecutor’s office listed Extinction Rebellion under “international terrorism”. New legislation in many countries, including the UK’s 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the 2023 Public Order Act, a so called “eco-vandalism” law in Italy and legislation in Germany that forbids any form of peaceful protest including sit-ins, was repressive towards peaceful protesters, he said. “By categorising environmental activism as a potential terrorist threat, by limiting freedom of expression and by criminalising certain forms of protests and protesters, these legislative and policy changes contribute to the shrinking of the civic space and seriously threaten the vitality of democratic societies.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion During his inquiry Forst received several reports of police harassment towards peaceful climate protesters. In Portugal, peaceful protesters had been arrested and detained by the police for “disruption of traffic” after taking part in a protest legally, with its itinerary notified to the authorities in advance. In France, people who tried to join an authorised demonstration had been subjected to widespread identity checks, vehicle searches and confiscation of their personal items by the police. In addition, journalists covering climate protests have been harassed and arrested across Europe, including in the UK and Poland. In Sweden, a journalist was arrested at a climate protest, subjected to a full strip-search at the police station, held in police custody for six hours and had their equipment confiscated, Forst said. He said he had recorded countless examples of police brutality. These included shoving and pushing protesters and using “pain grips” to deliberately inflict intense pain. In Austria, Finland, France and the Netherlands, protesters including children have been pepper-sprayed, and in the Netherlands police have used water cannon against non-violent protesters. Several countries are adopting measures for peaceful demonstrators that are also used against organised criminals. These include early morning raids by counter-terrorism units and the use of undercover police to infiltrate groups. Forst said states had international obligations related to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association and they must abide by these legal duties in their response to environmental protest. He said states had to address the root causes of environmental mobilisation by taking action to address the triple environmental crises of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. Forst’s report was released as the appeal court for England and Wales considers an application from the attorney general to remove one of the last remaining legal defences for protesters engaged in acts of criminal damage. The judges are due to give their ruling in the coming weeks. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest Europe news Share Reuse this content Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images Michel Forst (right) speaks with one of the demonstrators occupying trees to protest against the A69 motorway linking Toulouse and Castres in France, as police conduct an operation to remove them. Photograph: Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old European nations must end repression of peaceful climate protest, says UN expert This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old European nations must end repression of peaceful climate protest, says UN expert This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old European nations must end repression of peaceful climate protest, says UN expert This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Nations should be cutting emissions to meet Paris agreement, says Michel Forst after year-long inquiry Nations should be cutting emissions to meet Paris agreement, says Michel Forst after year-long inquiry Nations should be cutting emissions to meet Paris agreement, says Michel Forst after year-long inquiry European nations must end the repression and criminalisation of peaceful protest and urgently take action to cut emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders has said. After a year-long inquiry that included gathering evidence from the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Michel Forst said the repression faced by peaceful environmental activists was a major threat to democracy and human rights. All of the nations inspected are party to the Aarhus convention, which states that peaceful environmental protest is a legitimate exercise of the public’s right to participate in decision-making and that those engaged in it must be protected. But Forst said that across Europe the response to peaceful environmental protest was to repress rather than to enable and protect. “The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing and that scientists have been documenting for decades cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalised for it,” he said. “The only legitimate response to peaceful environmental activism and civil disobedience at this point is that the authorities, the media and the public realise how essential it is for us all to listen to what environmental defenders have to say.” Nations should be urgently cutting emissions to meet the Paris agreement, acting to restore 30% of all degraded ecosystems by 2030 and working to substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from air pollution. Forst said the failure of European nations to act urgently would lead to more direct-action protest. “To date, governments continue to take decisions that directly contradict the clear and urgent recommendations of scientists,” he said. Forst said the parts of the media and some politicians across Europe were criminalising environmental activism and labelling it a “terrorist threat”. He highlighted the 2023 European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT), which features environmental activism in its entries on current “extremism”. “Worryingly, the report classifies roadblocks and the occupation of bank buildings or airports as extremism and appears to take the view that being worried about climate change is an extremist viewpoint,” he said. In Spain, the 2022 report of the public prosecutor’s office listed Extinction Rebellion under “international terrorism”. New legislation in many countries, including the UK’s 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the 2023 Public Order Act, a so called “eco-vandalism” law in Italy and legislation in Germany that forbids any form of peaceful protest including sit-ins, was repressive towards peaceful protesters, he said. “By categorising environmental activism as a potential terrorist threat, by limiting freedom of expression and by criminalising certain forms of protests and protesters, these legislative and policy changes contribute to the shrinking of the civic space and seriously threaten the vitality of democratic societies.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion During his inquiry Forst received several reports of police harassment towards peaceful climate protesters. In Portugal, peaceful protesters had been arrested and detained by the police for “disruption of traffic” after taking part in a protest legally, with its itinerary notified to the authorities in advance. In France, people who tried to join an authorised demonstration had been subjected to widespread identity checks, vehicle searches and confiscation of their personal items by the police. In addition, journalists covering climate protests have been harassed and arrested across Europe, including in the UK and Poland. In Sweden, a journalist was arrested at a climate protest, subjected to a full strip-search at the police station, held in police custody for six hours and had their equipment confiscated, Forst said. He said he had recorded countless examples of police brutality. These included shoving and pushing protesters and using “pain grips” to deliberately inflict intense pain. In Austria, Finland, France and the Netherlands, protesters including children have been pepper-sprayed, and in the Netherlands police have used water cannon against non-violent protesters. Several countries are adopting measures for peaceful demonstrators that are also used against organised criminals. These include early morning raids by counter-terrorism units and the use of undercover police to infiltrate groups. Forst said states had international obligations related to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association and they must abide by these legal duties in their response to environmental protest. He said states had to address the root causes of environmental mobilisation by taking action to address the triple environmental crises of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. Forst’s report was released as the appeal court for England and Wales considers an application from the attorney general to remove one of the last remaining legal defences for protesters engaged in acts of criminal damage. The judges are due to give their ruling in the coming weeks. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest Europe news Share Reuse this content European nations must end the repression and criminalisation of peaceful protest and urgently take action to cut emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders has said. After a year-long inquiry that included gathering evidence from the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Michel Forst said the repression faced by peaceful environmental activists was a major threat to democracy and human rights. All of the nations inspected are party to the Aarhus convention, which states that peaceful environmental protest is a legitimate exercise of the public’s right to participate in decision-making and that those engaged in it must be protected. But Forst said that across Europe the response to peaceful environmental protest was to repress rather than to enable and protect. “The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing and that scientists have been documenting for decades cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalised for it,” he said. “The only legitimate response to peaceful environmental activism and civil disobedience at this point is that the authorities, the media and the public realise how essential it is for us all to listen to what environmental defenders have to say.” Nations should be urgently cutting emissions to meet the Paris agreement, acting to restore 30% of all degraded ecosystems by 2030 and working to substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from air pollution. Forst said the failure of European nations to act urgently would lead to more direct-action protest. “To date, governments continue to take decisions that directly contradict the clear and urgent recommendations of scientists,” he said. Forst said the parts of the media and some politicians across Europe were criminalising environmental activism and labelling it a “terrorist threat”. He highlighted the 2023 European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT), which features environmental activism in its entries on current “extremism”. “Worryingly, the report classifies roadblocks and the occupation of bank buildings or airports as extremism and appears to take the view that being worried about climate change is an extremist viewpoint,” he said. In Spain, the 2022 report of the public prosecutor’s office listed Extinction Rebellion under “international terrorism”. New legislation in many countries, including the UK’s 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the 2023 Public Order Act, a so called “eco-vandalism” law in Italy and legislation in Germany that forbids any form of peaceful protest including sit-ins, was repressive towards peaceful protesters, he said. “By categorising environmental activism as a potential terrorist threat, by limiting freedom of expression and by criminalising certain forms of protests and protesters, these legislative and policy changes contribute to the shrinking of the civic space and seriously threaten the vitality of democratic societies.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion During his inquiry Forst received several reports of police harassment towards peaceful climate protesters. In Portugal, peaceful protesters had been arrested and detained by the police for “disruption of traffic” after taking part in a protest legally, with its itinerary notified to the authorities in advance. In France, people who tried to join an authorised demonstration had been subjected to widespread identity checks, vehicle searches and confiscation of their personal items by the police. In addition, journalists covering climate protests have been harassed and arrested across Europe, including in the UK and Poland. In Sweden, a journalist was arrested at a climate protest, subjected to a full strip-search at the police station, held in police custody for six hours and had their equipment confiscated, Forst said. He said he had recorded countless examples of police brutality. These included shoving and pushing protesters and using “pain grips” to deliberately inflict intense pain. In Austria, Finland, France and the Netherlands, protesters including children have been pepper-sprayed, and in the Netherlands police have used water cannon against non-violent protesters. Several countries are adopting measures for peaceful demonstrators that are also used against organised criminals. These include early morning raids by counter-terrorism units and the use of undercover police to infiltrate groups. Forst said states had international obligations related to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association and they must abide by these legal duties in their response to environmental protest. He said states had to address the root causes of environmental mobilisation by taking action to address the triple environmental crises of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. Forst’s report was released as the appeal court for England and Wales considers an application from the attorney general to remove one of the last remaining legal defences for protesters engaged in acts of criminal damage. The judges are due to give their ruling in the coming weeks. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest Europe news Share Reuse this content European nations must end the repression and criminalisation of peaceful protest and urgently take action to cut emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders has said. After a year-long inquiry that included gathering evidence from the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Michel Forst said the repression faced by peaceful environmental activists was a major threat to democracy and human rights. All of the nations inspected are party to the Aarhus convention, which states that peaceful environmental protest is a legitimate exercise of the public’s right to participate in decision-making and that those engaged in it must be protected. But Forst said that across Europe the response to peaceful environmental protest was to repress rather than to enable and protect. “The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing and that scientists have been documenting for decades cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalised for it,” he said. “The only legitimate response to peaceful environmental activism and civil disobedience at this point is that the authorities, the media and the public realise how essential it is for us all to listen to what environmental defenders have to say.” Nations should be urgently cutting emissions to meet the Paris agreement, acting to restore 30% of all degraded ecosystems by 2030 and working to substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from air pollution. Forst said the failure of European nations to act urgently would lead to more direct-action protest. “To date, governments continue to take decisions that directly contradict the clear and urgent recommendations of scientists,” he said. Forst said the parts of the media and some politicians across Europe were criminalising environmental activism and labelling it a “terrorist threat”. He highlighted the 2023 European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT), which features environmental activism in its entries on current “extremism”. “Worryingly, the report classifies roadblocks and the occupation of bank buildings or airports as extremism and appears to take the view that being worried about climate change is an extremist viewpoint,” he said. In Spain, the 2022 report of the public prosecutor’s office listed Extinction Rebellion under “international terrorism”. New legislation in many countries, including the UK’s 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the 2023 Public Order Act, a so called “eco-vandalism” law in Italy and legislation in Germany that forbids any form of peaceful protest including sit-ins, was repressive towards peaceful protesters, he said. “By categorising environmental activism as a potential terrorist threat, by limiting freedom of expression and by criminalising certain forms of protests and protesters, these legislative and policy changes contribute to the shrinking of the civic space and seriously threaten the vitality of democratic societies.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion During his inquiry Forst received several reports of police harassment towards peaceful climate protesters. In Portugal, peaceful protesters had been arrested and detained by the police for “disruption of traffic” after taking part in a protest legally, with its itinerary notified to the authorities in advance. In France, people who tried to join an authorised demonstration had been subjected to widespread identity checks, vehicle searches and confiscation of their personal items by the police. In addition, journalists covering climate protests have been harassed and arrested across Europe, including in the UK and Poland. In Sweden, a journalist was arrested at a climate protest, subjected to a full strip-search at the police station, held in police custody for six hours and had their equipment confiscated, Forst said. He said he had recorded countless examples of police brutality. These included shoving and pushing protesters and using “pain grips” to deliberately inflict intense pain. In Austria, Finland, France and the Netherlands, protesters including children have been pepper-sprayed, and in the Netherlands police have used water cannon against non-violent protesters. Several countries are adopting measures for peaceful demonstrators that are also used against organised criminals. These include early morning raids by counter-terrorism units and the use of undercover police to infiltrate groups. Forst said states had international obligations related to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association and they must abide by these legal duties in their response to environmental protest. He said states had to address the root causes of environmental mobilisation by taking action to address the triple environmental crises of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. Forst’s report was released as the appeal court for England and Wales considers an application from the attorney general to remove one of the last remaining legal defences for protesters engaged in acts of criminal damage. The judges are due to give their ruling in the coming weeks. European nations must end the repression and criminalisation of peaceful protest and urgently take action to cut emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders has said. After a year-long inquiry that included gathering evidence from the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Michel Forst said the repression faced by peaceful environmental activists was a major threat to democracy and human rights. All of the nations inspected are party to the Aarhus convention, which states that peaceful environmental protest is a legitimate exercise of the public’s right to participate in decision-making and that those engaged in it must be protected. But Forst said that across Europe the response to peaceful environmental protest was to repress rather than to enable and protect. “The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing and that scientists have been documenting for decades cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalised for it,” he said. “The only legitimate response to peaceful environmental activism and civil disobedience at this point is that the authorities, the media and the public realise how essential it is for us all to listen to what environmental defenders have to say.” Nations should be urgently cutting emissions to meet the Paris agreement, acting to restore 30% of all degraded ecosystems by 2030 and working to substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from air pollution. Forst said the failure of European nations to act urgently would lead to more direct-action protest. “To date, governments continue to take decisions that directly contradict the clear and urgent recommendations of scientists,” he said. Forst said the parts of the media and some politicians across Europe were criminalising environmental activism and labelling it a “terrorist threat”. He highlighted the 2023 European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT), which features environmental activism in its entries on current “extremism”. “Worryingly, the report classifies roadblocks and the occupation of bank buildings or airports as extremism and appears to take the view that being worried about climate change is an extremist viewpoint,” he said. In Spain, the 2022 report of the public prosecutor’s office listed Extinction Rebellion under “international terrorism”. New legislation in many countries, including the UK’s 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the 2023 Public Order Act, a so called “eco-vandalism” law in Italy and legislation in Germany that forbids any form of peaceful protest including sit-ins, was repressive towards peaceful protesters, he said. “By categorising environmental activism as a potential terrorist threat, by limiting freedom of expression and by criminalising certain forms of protests and protesters, these legislative and policy changes contribute to the shrinking of the civic space and seriously threaten the vitality of democratic societies.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion During his inquiry Forst received several reports of police harassment towards peaceful climate protesters. In Portugal, peaceful protesters had been arrested and detained by the police for “disruption of traffic” after taking part in a protest legally, with its itinerary notified to the authorities in advance. In France, people who tried to join an authorised demonstration had been subjected to widespread identity checks, vehicle searches and confiscation of their personal items by the police. In addition, journalists covering climate protests have been harassed and arrested across Europe, including in the UK and Poland. In Sweden, a journalist was arrested at a climate protest, subjected to a full strip-search at the police station, held in police custody for six hours and had their equipment confiscated, Forst said. He said he had recorded countless examples of police brutality. These included shoving and pushing protesters and using “pain grips” to deliberately inflict intense pain. In Austria, Finland, France and the Netherlands, protesters including children have been pepper-sprayed, and in the Netherlands police have used water cannon against non-violent protesters. Several countries are adopting measures for peaceful demonstrators that are also used against organised criminals. These include early morning raids by counter-terrorism units and the use of undercover police to infiltrate groups. Forst said states had international obligations related to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association and they must abide by these legal duties in their response to environmental protest. He said states had to address the root causes of environmental mobilisation by taking action to address the triple environmental crises of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. Forst’s report was released as the appeal court for England and Wales considers an application from the attorney general to remove one of the last remaining legal defences for protesters engaged in acts of criminal damage. The judges are due to give their ruling in the coming weeks. European nations must end the repression and criminalisation of peaceful protest and urgently take action to cut emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders has said. After a year-long inquiry that included gathering evidence from the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Michel Forst said the repression faced by peaceful environmental activists was a major threat to democracy and human rights. All of the nations inspected are party to the Aarhus convention, which states that peaceful environmental protest is a legitimate exercise of the public’s right to participate in decision-making and that those engaged in it must be protected. But Forst said that across Europe the response to peaceful environmental protest was to repress rather than to enable and protect. “The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing and that scientists have been documenting for decades cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalised for it,” he said. “The only legitimate response to peaceful environmental activism and civil disobedience at this point is that the authorities, the media and the public realise how essential it is for us all to listen to what environmental defenders have to say.” Nations should be urgently cutting emissions to meet the Paris agreement, acting to restore 30% of all degraded ecosystems by 2030 and working to substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from air pollution. Forst said the failure of European nations to act urgently would lead to more direct-action protest. “To date, governments continue to take decisions that directly contradict the clear and urgent recommendations of scientists,” he said. Forst said the parts of the media and some politicians across Europe were criminalising environmental activism and labelling it a “terrorist threat”. He highlighted the 2023 European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT), which features environmental activism in its entries on current “extremism”. “Worryingly, the report classifies roadblocks and the occupation of bank buildings or airports as extremism and appears to take the view that being worried about climate change is an extremist viewpoint,” he said. In Spain, the 2022 report of the public prosecutor’s office listed Extinction Rebellion under “international terrorism”. New legislation in many countries, including the UK’s 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the 2023 Public Order Act, a so called “eco-vandalism” law in Italy and legislation in Germany that forbids any form of peaceful protest including sit-ins, was repressive towards peaceful protesters, he said. “By categorising environmental activism as a potential terrorist threat, by limiting freedom of expression and by criminalising certain forms of protests and protesters, these legislative and policy changes contribute to the shrinking of the civic space and seriously threaten the vitality of democratic societies.” During his inquiry Forst received several reports of police harassment towards peaceful climate protesters. In Portugal, peaceful protesters had been arrested and detained by the police for “disruption of traffic” after taking part in a protest legally, with its itinerary notified to the authorities in advance. In France, people who tried to join an authorised demonstration had been subjected to widespread identity checks, vehicle searches and confiscation of their personal items by the police. In addition, journalists covering climate protests have been harassed and arrested across Europe, including in the UK and Poland. In Sweden, a journalist was arrested at a climate protest, subjected to a full strip-search at the police station, held in police custody for six hours and had their equipment confiscated, Forst said. He said he had recorded countless examples of police brutality. These included shoving and pushing protesters and using “pain grips” to deliberately inflict intense pain. In Austria, Finland, France and the Netherlands, protesters including children have been pepper-sprayed, and in the Netherlands police have used water cannon against non-violent protesters. Several countries are adopting measures for peaceful demonstrators that are also used against organised criminals. These include early morning raids by counter-terrorism units and the use of undercover police to infiltrate groups. Forst said states had international obligations related to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association and they must abide by these legal duties in their response to environmental protest. He said states had to address the root causes of environmental mobilisation by taking action to address the triple environmental crises of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. Forst’s report was released as the appeal court for England and Wales considers an application from the attorney general to remove one of the last remaining legal defences for protesters engaged in acts of criminal damage. The judges are due to give their ruling in the coming weeks. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest Europe news Share Reuse this content Environmental activism Climate crisis Protest Europe news |
Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell stepping down to ‘spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles’
Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube This article is more than 1 year old Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell stepping down to ‘spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles’ This article is more than 1 year old Late-night hosts discuss the Senate Republican leader and Trump’s less-than-stellar Michigan primary performance L ate-night hosts talk Mitch McConnell’s announcement that he’s stepping down from his leadership position, a new book about Melania and Joe Biden’s headline-making ice-cream shop visit with Seth Meyers . Jimmy Kimmel Jimmy Kimmel recapped the results of the Michigan primaries on Wednesday evening, starting with the Democrats: Joe Biden won handily with 81% of the vote, while 13.3% voted “uncommitted” in protest of his handling of Israel and Gaza. “If Muslim Democrats in Michigan withhold their vote, he could lose the state, which would likely elect Trump, who would immediately turn Gaza into a giant Moses-themed golf resort,” a frustrated Kimmel explained. “But the important thing is: vote with your rage. That’s how we do it now.” Biden had a medical appointment this week and emerged with a clean bill of health. Still, “people act like the results of Biden’s physical are somehow going to influence who we vote for,” said Kimmel. “I don’t care if he comes out of that doctor’s office in an iron lung. I would be fully OK with a Weekend at Bernie’s-type White House if it means no Trump.” Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ Read more In congressional news, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, announced his retirement from leading Republicans, effective November, on the Senate floor. “He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles,” Kimmel joked. And a new book called American Woman: The Transformation of the Modern First Lady, from Hillary Clinton to Jill Biden claims that Melania Trump spent the majority of her time as first lady in meetings with “teams of lawyers to examine her assets and attend to matters associated with her pre- and postnuptial agreements with her husband”. “That sounds right,” said Kimmel. “Listen, she probably just wanted to make sure she didn’t get stuck with Eric in the divorce.” Stephen Colbert McConnell won’t step down from Senate leadership until November, “because at 82 that’s how long it takes him to step”, joked Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. The host then turned to the Michigan primaries, where Biden got 81% of the vote, “1% for every year he’s been alive”. As a result of an organized campaign by progressives, young and Arab American voters to register discontent with Biden’s handling of Israel, 13.3% voted “uncommitted”. “These are people who previously supported Biden but wanted to send him a message to change his behavior,” Colbert explained. “It’s like how you would tell a child you can’t have dessert until you clean your room and figure out who gets Jerusalem.” After capturing 3% of the vote despite having dropped out of the race, Marianne Williamson unsuspended her campaign on Tuesday. “And that’s the ultimate proof that she’s an optimist. She always sees the glass as 3% full,” said Colbert. Williamson beat out Dean Phillips, who was still in the race and got 2.7% of the vote. Afterwards, Phillips tweeted: “If you resent me for the audacity to challenge Joe Biden, at least you’ll appreciate how relatively strong I’m making him look among primary voters!” “That’s like a guy saying to his ex, ‘Hey, you gotta admit, thanks to me sex with your new boyfriend must seem pretty great!’” Colbert joked. On the Republican side, Trump easily beat Nikki Haley, though by 15 points less than pollsters predicted. As usual, Trump did particularly badly with college-educated voters, “possibly because they all had to take the pre-req course ‘Poli Sci 101: Intro to Don’t Vote for Hitler’”, Colbert quipped. Seth Meyers And on Late Night, Seth Meyers addressed his headline-making appearance with Biden at an ice-cream store with Manhattan, during which the president announced a potential ceasefire in Gaza this weekend. The strangeness of the announcement made international headlines. “You think it was strange for you ? I was standing right next to him!” Meyers explained. “Normally I take Closer Looks at the news, now I’m in the news, which means it’s time to take a Closer Look at … myself? “Shame on me, by the way, for forgetting the first rule of comedy: when the Middle East comes up, put your ice-cream cone down,” he joked. Meyers also jokingly addressed criticism of his appearance on camera next to Biden, smiling and holding his ice-cream cone. “You try exhibiting gravitas next to the president of the United States while licking some honeycomb ice-cream surrounded by a group of strangers,” he said. “I couldn’t get caught looking into the lens! I already felt like I was in an episode of Curb and Veep – I didn’t want to do a Jim Halpert look into the camera too.” On a more serious note, “I was thinking to myself, I really hope he’s right about an imminent ceasefire,” Meyers said. “In fact, I hope it comes as soon as possible because as far as I can tell, the only way out of this nightmare is an immediate, lasting ceasefire and the safe return of all hostages.” Explore more on these topics Late-night TV roundup Seth Meyers Jimmy Kimmel Stephen Colbert TV comedy Comedy Television features Share Reuse this content Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube This article is more than 1 year old Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell stepping down to ‘spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles’ This article is more than 1 year old Late-night hosts discuss the Senate Republican leader and Trump’s less-than-stellar Michigan primary performance L ate-night hosts talk Mitch McConnell’s announcement that he’s stepping down from his leadership position, a new book about Melania and Joe Biden’s headline-making ice-cream shop visit with Seth Meyers . Jimmy Kimmel Jimmy Kimmel recapped the results of the Michigan primaries on Wednesday evening, starting with the Democrats: Joe Biden won handily with 81% of the vote, while 13.3% voted “uncommitted” in protest of his handling of Israel and Gaza. “If Muslim Democrats in Michigan withhold their vote, he could lose the state, which would likely elect Trump, who would immediately turn Gaza into a giant Moses-themed golf resort,” a frustrated Kimmel explained. “But the important thing is: vote with your rage. That’s how we do it now.” Biden had a medical appointment this week and emerged with a clean bill of health. Still, “people act like the results of Biden’s physical are somehow going to influence who we vote for,” said Kimmel. “I don’t care if he comes out of that doctor’s office in an iron lung. I would be fully OK with a Weekend at Bernie’s-type White House if it means no Trump.” Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ Read more In congressional news, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, announced his retirement from leading Republicans, effective November, on the Senate floor. “He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles,” Kimmel joked. And a new book called American Woman: The Transformation of the Modern First Lady, from Hillary Clinton to Jill Biden claims that Melania Trump spent the majority of her time as first lady in meetings with “teams of lawyers to examine her assets and attend to matters associated with her pre- and postnuptial agreements with her husband”. “That sounds right,” said Kimmel. “Listen, she probably just wanted to make sure she didn’t get stuck with Eric in the divorce.” Stephen Colbert McConnell won’t step down from Senate leadership until November, “because at 82 that’s how long it takes him to step”, joked Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. The host then turned to the Michigan primaries, where Biden got 81% of the vote, “1% for every year he’s been alive”. As a result of an organized campaign by progressives, young and Arab American voters to register discontent with Biden’s handling of Israel, 13.3% voted “uncommitted”. “These are people who previously supported Biden but wanted to send him a message to change his behavior,” Colbert explained. “It’s like how you would tell a child you can’t have dessert until you clean your room and figure out who gets Jerusalem.” After capturing 3% of the vote despite having dropped out of the race, Marianne Williamson unsuspended her campaign on Tuesday. “And that’s the ultimate proof that she’s an optimist. She always sees the glass as 3% full,” said Colbert. Williamson beat out Dean Phillips, who was still in the race and got 2.7% of the vote. Afterwards, Phillips tweeted: “If you resent me for the audacity to challenge Joe Biden, at least you’ll appreciate how relatively strong I’m making him look among primary voters!” “That’s like a guy saying to his ex, ‘Hey, you gotta admit, thanks to me sex with your new boyfriend must seem pretty great!’” Colbert joked. On the Republican side, Trump easily beat Nikki Haley, though by 15 points less than pollsters predicted. As usual, Trump did particularly badly with college-educated voters, “possibly because they all had to take the pre-req course ‘Poli Sci 101: Intro to Don’t Vote for Hitler’”, Colbert quipped. Seth Meyers And on Late Night, Seth Meyers addressed his headline-making appearance with Biden at an ice-cream store with Manhattan, during which the president announced a potential ceasefire in Gaza this weekend. The strangeness of the announcement made international headlines. “You think it was strange for you ? I was standing right next to him!” Meyers explained. “Normally I take Closer Looks at the news, now I’m in the news, which means it’s time to take a Closer Look at … myself? “Shame on me, by the way, for forgetting the first rule of comedy: when the Middle East comes up, put your ice-cream cone down,” he joked. Meyers also jokingly addressed criticism of his appearance on camera next to Biden, smiling and holding his ice-cream cone. “You try exhibiting gravitas next to the president of the United States while licking some honeycomb ice-cream surrounded by a group of strangers,” he said. “I couldn’t get caught looking into the lens! I already felt like I was in an episode of Curb and Veep – I didn’t want to do a Jim Halpert look into the camera too.” On a more serious note, “I was thinking to myself, I really hope he’s right about an imminent ceasefire,” Meyers said. “In fact, I hope it comes as soon as possible because as far as I can tell, the only way out of this nightmare is an immediate, lasting ceasefire and the safe return of all hostages.” Explore more on these topics Late-night TV roundup Seth Meyers Jimmy Kimmel Stephen Colbert TV comedy Comedy Television features Share Reuse this content Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube View image in fullscreen Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell: ‘He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles.’ Photograph: YouTube This article is more than 1 year old Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell stepping down to ‘spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell stepping down to ‘spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Jimmy Kimmel on Mitch McConnell stepping down to ‘spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Late-night hosts discuss the Senate Republican leader and Trump’s less-than-stellar Michigan primary performance Late-night hosts discuss the Senate Republican leader and Trump’s less-than-stellar Michigan primary performance Late-night hosts discuss the Senate Republican leader and Trump’s less-than-stellar Michigan primary performance L ate-night hosts talk Mitch McConnell’s announcement that he’s stepping down from his leadership position, a new book about Melania and Joe Biden’s headline-making ice-cream shop visit with Seth Meyers . Jimmy Kimmel Jimmy Kimmel recapped the results of the Michigan primaries on Wednesday evening, starting with the Democrats: Joe Biden won handily with 81% of the vote, while 13.3% voted “uncommitted” in protest of his handling of Israel and Gaza. “If Muslim Democrats in Michigan withhold their vote, he could lose the state, which would likely elect Trump, who would immediately turn Gaza into a giant Moses-themed golf resort,” a frustrated Kimmel explained. “But the important thing is: vote with your rage. That’s how we do it now.” Biden had a medical appointment this week and emerged with a clean bill of health. Still, “people act like the results of Biden’s physical are somehow going to influence who we vote for,” said Kimmel. “I don’t care if he comes out of that doctor’s office in an iron lung. I would be fully OK with a Weekend at Bernie’s-type White House if it means no Trump.” Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ Read more In congressional news, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, announced his retirement from leading Republicans, effective November, on the Senate floor. “He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles,” Kimmel joked. And a new book called American Woman: The Transformation of the Modern First Lady, from Hillary Clinton to Jill Biden claims that Melania Trump spent the majority of her time as first lady in meetings with “teams of lawyers to examine her assets and attend to matters associated with her pre- and postnuptial agreements with her husband”. “That sounds right,” said Kimmel. “Listen, she probably just wanted to make sure she didn’t get stuck with Eric in the divorce.” Stephen Colbert McConnell won’t step down from Senate leadership until November, “because at 82 that’s how long it takes him to step”, joked Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. The host then turned to the Michigan primaries, where Biden got 81% of the vote, “1% for every year he’s been alive”. As a result of an organized campaign by progressives, young and Arab American voters to register discontent with Biden’s handling of Israel, 13.3% voted “uncommitted”. “These are people who previously supported Biden but wanted to send him a message to change his behavior,” Colbert explained. “It’s like how you would tell a child you can’t have dessert until you clean your room and figure out who gets Jerusalem.” After capturing 3% of the vote despite having dropped out of the race, Marianne Williamson unsuspended her campaign on Tuesday. “And that’s the ultimate proof that she’s an optimist. She always sees the glass as 3% full,” said Colbert. Williamson beat out Dean Phillips, who was still in the race and got 2.7% of the vote. Afterwards, Phillips tweeted: “If you resent me for the audacity to challenge Joe Biden, at least you’ll appreciate how relatively strong I’m making him look among primary voters!” “That’s like a guy saying to his ex, ‘Hey, you gotta admit, thanks to me sex with your new boyfriend must seem pretty great!’” Colbert joked. On the Republican side, Trump easily beat Nikki Haley, though by 15 points less than pollsters predicted. As usual, Trump did particularly badly with college-educated voters, “possibly because they all had to take the pre-req course ‘Poli Sci 101: Intro to Don’t Vote for Hitler’”, Colbert quipped. Seth Meyers And on Late Night, Seth Meyers addressed his headline-making appearance with Biden at an ice-cream store with Manhattan, during which the president announced a potential ceasefire in Gaza this weekend. The strangeness of the announcement made international headlines. “You think it was strange for you ? I was standing right next to him!” Meyers explained. “Normally I take Closer Looks at the news, now I’m in the news, which means it’s time to take a Closer Look at … myself? “Shame on me, by the way, for forgetting the first rule of comedy: when the Middle East comes up, put your ice-cream cone down,” he joked. Meyers also jokingly addressed criticism of his appearance on camera next to Biden, smiling and holding his ice-cream cone. “You try exhibiting gravitas next to the president of the United States while licking some honeycomb ice-cream surrounded by a group of strangers,” he said. “I couldn’t get caught looking into the lens! I already felt like I was in an episode of Curb and Veep – I didn’t want to do a Jim Halpert look into the camera too.” On a more serious note, “I was thinking to myself, I really hope he’s right about an imminent ceasefire,” Meyers said. “In fact, I hope it comes as soon as possible because as far as I can tell, the only way out of this nightmare is an immediate, lasting ceasefire and the safe return of all hostages.” Explore more on these topics Late-night TV roundup Seth Meyers Jimmy Kimmel Stephen Colbert TV comedy Comedy Television features Share Reuse this content L ate-night hosts talk Mitch McConnell’s announcement that he’s stepping down from his leadership position, a new book about Melania and Joe Biden’s headline-making ice-cream shop visit with Seth Meyers . Jimmy Kimmel Jimmy Kimmel recapped the results of the Michigan primaries on Wednesday evening, starting with the Democrats: Joe Biden won handily with 81% of the vote, while 13.3% voted “uncommitted” in protest of his handling of Israel and Gaza. “If Muslim Democrats in Michigan withhold their vote, he could lose the state, which would likely elect Trump, who would immediately turn Gaza into a giant Moses-themed golf resort,” a frustrated Kimmel explained. “But the important thing is: vote with your rage. That’s how we do it now.” Biden had a medical appointment this week and emerged with a clean bill of health. Still, “people act like the results of Biden’s physical are somehow going to influence who we vote for,” said Kimmel. “I don’t care if he comes out of that doctor’s office in an iron lung. I would be fully OK with a Weekend at Bernie’s-type White House if it means no Trump.” Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ Read more In congressional news, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, announced his retirement from leading Republicans, effective November, on the Senate floor. “He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles,” Kimmel joked. And a new book called American Woman: The Transformation of the Modern First Lady, from Hillary Clinton to Jill Biden claims that Melania Trump spent the majority of her time as first lady in meetings with “teams of lawyers to examine her assets and attend to matters associated with her pre- and postnuptial agreements with her husband”. “That sounds right,” said Kimmel. “Listen, she probably just wanted to make sure she didn’t get stuck with Eric in the divorce.” Stephen Colbert McConnell won’t step down from Senate leadership until November, “because at 82 that’s how long it takes him to step”, joked Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. The host then turned to the Michigan primaries, where Biden got 81% of the vote, “1% for every year he’s been alive”. As a result of an organized campaign by progressives, young and Arab American voters to register discontent with Biden’s handling of Israel, 13.3% voted “uncommitted”. “These are people who previously supported Biden but wanted to send him a message to change his behavior,” Colbert explained. “It’s like how you would tell a child you can’t have dessert until you clean your room and figure out who gets Jerusalem.” After capturing 3% of the vote despite having dropped out of the race, Marianne Williamson unsuspended her campaign on Tuesday. “And that’s the ultimate proof that she’s an optimist. She always sees the glass as 3% full,” said Colbert. Williamson beat out Dean Phillips, who was still in the race and got 2.7% of the vote. Afterwards, Phillips tweeted: “If you resent me for the audacity to challenge Joe Biden, at least you’ll appreciate how relatively strong I’m making him look among primary voters!” “That’s like a guy saying to his ex, ‘Hey, you gotta admit, thanks to me sex with your new boyfriend must seem pretty great!’” Colbert joked. On the Republican side, Trump easily beat Nikki Haley, though by 15 points less than pollsters predicted. As usual, Trump did particularly badly with college-educated voters, “possibly because they all had to take the pre-req course ‘Poli Sci 101: Intro to Don’t Vote for Hitler’”, Colbert quipped. Seth Meyers And on Late Night, Seth Meyers addressed his headline-making appearance with Biden at an ice-cream store with Manhattan, during which the president announced a potential ceasefire in Gaza this weekend. The strangeness of the announcement made international headlines. “You think it was strange for you ? I was standing right next to him!” Meyers explained. “Normally I take Closer Looks at the news, now I’m in the news, which means it’s time to take a Closer Look at … myself? “Shame on me, by the way, for forgetting the first rule of comedy: when the Middle East comes up, put your ice-cream cone down,” he joked. Meyers also jokingly addressed criticism of his appearance on camera next to Biden, smiling and holding his ice-cream cone. “You try exhibiting gravitas next to the president of the United States while licking some honeycomb ice-cream surrounded by a group of strangers,” he said. “I couldn’t get caught looking into the lens! I already felt like I was in an episode of Curb and Veep – I didn’t want to do a Jim Halpert look into the camera too.” On a more serious note, “I was thinking to myself, I really hope he’s right about an imminent ceasefire,” Meyers said. “In fact, I hope it comes as soon as possible because as far as I can tell, the only way out of this nightmare is an immediate, lasting ceasefire and the safe return of all hostages.” Explore more on these topics Late-night TV roundup Seth Meyers Jimmy Kimmel Stephen Colbert TV comedy Comedy Television features Share Reuse this content L ate-night hosts talk Mitch McConnell’s announcement that he’s stepping down from his leadership position, a new book about Melania and Joe Biden’s headline-making ice-cream shop visit with Seth Meyers . Jimmy Kimmel Jimmy Kimmel recapped the results of the Michigan primaries on Wednesday evening, starting with the Democrats: Joe Biden won handily with 81% of the vote, while 13.3% voted “uncommitted” in protest of his handling of Israel and Gaza. “If Muslim Democrats in Michigan withhold their vote, he could lose the state, which would likely elect Trump, who would immediately turn Gaza into a giant Moses-themed golf resort,” a frustrated Kimmel explained. “But the important thing is: vote with your rage. That’s how we do it now.” Biden had a medical appointment this week and emerged with a clean bill of health. Still, “people act like the results of Biden’s physical are somehow going to influence who we vote for,” said Kimmel. “I don’t care if he comes out of that doctor’s office in an iron lung. I would be fully OK with a Weekend at Bernie’s-type White House if it means no Trump.” Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ Read more In congressional news, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, announced his retirement from leading Republicans, effective November, on the Senate floor. “He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles,” Kimmel joked. And a new book called American Woman: The Transformation of the Modern First Lady, from Hillary Clinton to Jill Biden claims that Melania Trump spent the majority of her time as first lady in meetings with “teams of lawyers to examine her assets and attend to matters associated with her pre- and postnuptial agreements with her husband”. “That sounds right,” said Kimmel. “Listen, she probably just wanted to make sure she didn’t get stuck with Eric in the divorce.” Stephen Colbert McConnell won’t step down from Senate leadership until November, “because at 82 that’s how long it takes him to step”, joked Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. The host then turned to the Michigan primaries, where Biden got 81% of the vote, “1% for every year he’s been alive”. As a result of an organized campaign by progressives, young and Arab American voters to register discontent with Biden’s handling of Israel, 13.3% voted “uncommitted”. “These are people who previously supported Biden but wanted to send him a message to change his behavior,” Colbert explained. “It’s like how you would tell a child you can’t have dessert until you clean your room and figure out who gets Jerusalem.” After capturing 3% of the vote despite having dropped out of the race, Marianne Williamson unsuspended her campaign on Tuesday. “And that’s the ultimate proof that she’s an optimist. She always sees the glass as 3% full,” said Colbert. Williamson beat out Dean Phillips, who was still in the race and got 2.7% of the vote. Afterwards, Phillips tweeted: “If you resent me for the audacity to challenge Joe Biden, at least you’ll appreciate how relatively strong I’m making him look among primary voters!” “That’s like a guy saying to his ex, ‘Hey, you gotta admit, thanks to me sex with your new boyfriend must seem pretty great!’” Colbert joked. On the Republican side, Trump easily beat Nikki Haley, though by 15 points less than pollsters predicted. As usual, Trump did particularly badly with college-educated voters, “possibly because they all had to take the pre-req course ‘Poli Sci 101: Intro to Don’t Vote for Hitler’”, Colbert quipped. Seth Meyers And on Late Night, Seth Meyers addressed his headline-making appearance with Biden at an ice-cream store with Manhattan, during which the president announced a potential ceasefire in Gaza this weekend. The strangeness of the announcement made international headlines. “You think it was strange for you ? I was standing right next to him!” Meyers explained. “Normally I take Closer Looks at the news, now I’m in the news, which means it’s time to take a Closer Look at … myself? “Shame on me, by the way, for forgetting the first rule of comedy: when the Middle East comes up, put your ice-cream cone down,” he joked. Meyers also jokingly addressed criticism of his appearance on camera next to Biden, smiling and holding his ice-cream cone. “You try exhibiting gravitas next to the president of the United States while licking some honeycomb ice-cream surrounded by a group of strangers,” he said. “I couldn’t get caught looking into the lens! I already felt like I was in an episode of Curb and Veep – I didn’t want to do a Jim Halpert look into the camera too.” On a more serious note, “I was thinking to myself, I really hope he’s right about an imminent ceasefire,” Meyers said. “In fact, I hope it comes as soon as possible because as far as I can tell, the only way out of this nightmare is an immediate, lasting ceasefire and the safe return of all hostages.” L ate-night hosts talk Mitch McConnell’s announcement that he’s stepping down from his leadership position, a new book about Melania and Joe Biden’s headline-making ice-cream shop visit with Seth Meyers . Jimmy Kimmel Jimmy Kimmel recapped the results of the Michigan primaries on Wednesday evening, starting with the Democrats: Joe Biden won handily with 81% of the vote, while 13.3% voted “uncommitted” in protest of his handling of Israel and Gaza. “If Muslim Democrats in Michigan withhold their vote, he could lose the state, which would likely elect Trump, who would immediately turn Gaza into a giant Moses-themed golf resort,” a frustrated Kimmel explained. “But the important thing is: vote with your rage. That’s how we do it now.” Biden had a medical appointment this week and emerged with a clean bill of health. Still, “people act like the results of Biden’s physical are somehow going to influence who we vote for,” said Kimmel. “I don’t care if he comes out of that doctor’s office in an iron lung. I would be fully OK with a Weekend at Bernie’s-type White House if it means no Trump.” Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ Read more In congressional news, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, announced his retirement from leading Republicans, effective November, on the Senate floor. “He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles,” Kimmel joked. And a new book called American Woman: The Transformation of the Modern First Lady, from Hillary Clinton to Jill Biden claims that Melania Trump spent the majority of her time as first lady in meetings with “teams of lawyers to examine her assets and attend to matters associated with her pre- and postnuptial agreements with her husband”. “That sounds right,” said Kimmel. “Listen, she probably just wanted to make sure she didn’t get stuck with Eric in the divorce.” Stephen Colbert McConnell won’t step down from Senate leadership until November, “because at 82 that’s how long it takes him to step”, joked Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. The host then turned to the Michigan primaries, where Biden got 81% of the vote, “1% for every year he’s been alive”. As a result of an organized campaign by progressives, young and Arab American voters to register discontent with Biden’s handling of Israel, 13.3% voted “uncommitted”. “These are people who previously supported Biden but wanted to send him a message to change his behavior,” Colbert explained. “It’s like how you would tell a child you can’t have dessert until you clean your room and figure out who gets Jerusalem.” After capturing 3% of the vote despite having dropped out of the race, Marianne Williamson unsuspended her campaign on Tuesday. “And that’s the ultimate proof that she’s an optimist. She always sees the glass as 3% full,” said Colbert. Williamson beat out Dean Phillips, who was still in the race and got 2.7% of the vote. Afterwards, Phillips tweeted: “If you resent me for the audacity to challenge Joe Biden, at least you’ll appreciate how relatively strong I’m making him look among primary voters!” “That’s like a guy saying to his ex, ‘Hey, you gotta admit, thanks to me sex with your new boyfriend must seem pretty great!’” Colbert joked. On the Republican side, Trump easily beat Nikki Haley, though by 15 points less than pollsters predicted. As usual, Trump did particularly badly with college-educated voters, “possibly because they all had to take the pre-req course ‘Poli Sci 101: Intro to Don’t Vote for Hitler’”, Colbert quipped. Seth Meyers And on Late Night, Seth Meyers addressed his headline-making appearance with Biden at an ice-cream store with Manhattan, during which the president announced a potential ceasefire in Gaza this weekend. The strangeness of the announcement made international headlines. “You think it was strange for you ? I was standing right next to him!” Meyers explained. “Normally I take Closer Looks at the news, now I’m in the news, which means it’s time to take a Closer Look at … myself? “Shame on me, by the way, for forgetting the first rule of comedy: when the Middle East comes up, put your ice-cream cone down,” he joked. Meyers also jokingly addressed criticism of his appearance on camera next to Biden, smiling and holding his ice-cream cone. “You try exhibiting gravitas next to the president of the United States while licking some honeycomb ice-cream surrounded by a group of strangers,” he said. “I couldn’t get caught looking into the lens! I already felt like I was in an episode of Curb and Veep – I didn’t want to do a Jim Halpert look into the camera too.” On a more serious note, “I was thinking to myself, I really hope he’s right about an imminent ceasefire,” Meyers said. “In fact, I hope it comes as soon as possible because as far as I can tell, the only way out of this nightmare is an immediate, lasting ceasefire and the safe return of all hostages.” L ate-night hosts talk Mitch McConnell’s announcement that he’s stepping down from his leadership position, a new book about Melania and Joe Biden’s headline-making ice-cream shop visit with Seth Meyers . Jimmy Kimmel recapped the results of the Michigan primaries on Wednesday evening, starting with the Democrats: Joe Biden won handily with 81% of the vote, while 13.3% voted “uncommitted” in protest of his handling of Israel and Gaza. “If Muslim Democrats in Michigan withhold their vote, he could lose the state, which would likely elect Trump, who would immediately turn Gaza into a giant Moses-themed golf resort,” a frustrated Kimmel explained. “But the important thing is: vote with your rage. That’s how we do it now.” Biden had a medical appointment this week and emerged with a clean bill of health. Still, “people act like the results of Biden’s physical are somehow going to influence who we vote for,” said Kimmel. “I don’t care if he comes out of that doctor’s office in an iron lung. I would be fully OK with a Weekend at Bernie’s-type White House if it means no Trump.” Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ Read more Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ Read more Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ Read more Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ Jimmy Kimmel on primary season: ‘All the suspense of an episode of Blue’s Clues’ In congressional news, the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, announced his retirement from leading Republicans, effective November, on the Senate floor. “He’ll be retiring to the Galápagos Islands, to spend more time with the other 500-year-old turtles,” Kimmel joked. And a new book called American Woman: The Transformation of the Modern First Lady, from Hillary Clinton to Jill Biden claims that Melania Trump spent the majority of her time as first lady in meetings with “teams of lawyers to examine her assets and attend to matters associated with her pre- and postnuptial agreements with her husband”. “That sounds right,” said Kimmel. “Listen, she probably just wanted to make sure she didn’t get stuck with Eric in the divorce.” McConnell won’t step down from Senate leadership until November, “because at 82 that’s how long it takes him to step”, joked Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. The host then turned to the Michigan primaries, where Biden got 81% of the vote, “1% for every year he’s been alive”. As a result of an organized campaign by progressives, young and Arab American voters to register discontent with Biden’s handling of Israel, 13.3% voted “uncommitted”. “These are people who previously supported Biden but wanted to send him a message to change his behavior,” Colbert explained. “It’s like how you would tell a child you can’t have dessert until you clean your room and figure out who gets Jerusalem.” After capturing 3% of the vote despite having dropped out of the race, Marianne Williamson unsuspended her campaign on Tuesday. “And that’s the ultimate proof that she’s an optimist. She always sees the glass as 3% full,” said Colbert. Williamson beat out Dean Phillips, who was still in the race and got 2.7% of the vote. Afterwards, Phillips tweeted: “If you resent me for the audacity to challenge Joe Biden, at least you’ll appreciate how relatively strong I’m making him look among primary voters!” “That’s like a guy saying to his ex, ‘Hey, you gotta admit, thanks to me sex with your new boyfriend must seem pretty great!’” Colbert joked. On the Republican side, Trump easily beat Nikki Haley, though by 15 points less than pollsters predicted. As usual, Trump did particularly badly with college-educated voters, “possibly because they all had to take the pre-req course ‘Poli Sci 101: Intro to Don’t Vote for Hitler’”, Colbert quipped. And on Late Night, Seth Meyers addressed his headline-making appearance with Biden at an ice-cream store with Manhattan, during which the president announced a potential ceasefire in Gaza this weekend. The strangeness of the announcement made international headlines. “You think it was strange for you ? I was standing right next to him!” Meyers explained. “Normally I take Closer Looks at the news, now I’m in the news, which means it’s time to take a Closer Look at … myself? “Shame on me, by the way, for forgetting the first rule of comedy: when the Middle East comes up, put your ice-cream cone down,” he joked. Meyers also jokingly addressed criticism of his appearance on camera next to Biden, smiling and holding his ice-cream cone. “You try exhibiting gravitas next to the president of the United States while licking some honeycomb ice-cream surrounded by a group of strangers,” he said. “I couldn’t get caught looking into the lens! I already felt like I was in an episode of Curb and Veep – I didn’t want to do a Jim Halpert look into the camera too.” On a more serious note, “I was thinking to myself, I really hope he’s right about an imminent ceasefire,” Meyers said. “In fact, I hope it comes as soon as possible because as far as I can tell, the only way out of this nightmare is an immediate, lasting ceasefire and the safe return of all hostages.” Explore more on these topics Late-night TV roundup Seth Meyers Jimmy Kimmel Stephen Colbert TV comedy Comedy Television features Share Reuse this content Late-night TV roundup Seth Meyers Jimmy Kimmel Stephen Colbert TV comedy Comedy Television features |
Number of children home schooled in England rises by more than 10,000
According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images View image in fullscreen According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Number of children home schooled in England rises by more than 10,000 This article is more than 1 year old Mental health being increasingly cited as main reason for parents choosing home education, official figures find The number of children in England being home schooled increased by more than 10,000 last autumn, with mental health being increasingly cited by parents as the main reason, according to official figures. The statistics published by the Department for Education (DfE) showed that 92,000 children were recorded as being home schooled on one day last term, compared with 80,900 at the same point in autumn 2022. The government is launching a fresh push to improve school attendances in England, including a 33% increase in the cost of fines for unauthorised absences and a tougher line banning pupils from attending protests during school hours. Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says Read more The percentage of parents recording mental health as the primary reason for home education rose from 9% last year to 13%. “Philosophical” or “lifestyle” reasons accounted for 24%, while 40% were recorded as unknown, other or no reason. One per cent of parents cited religion as their primary reason for home schooling, while 3% cited bullying. Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “We are concerned that the increase in elective home education is in part a symptom of wider problems – such as unmet special education needs, and school anxiety and other mental health issues. “These are areas that are badly under-resourced, with huge pressures on school funding and an erosion in local support services.” According to the estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23, up from 116,000 in 2021-22. For the first time the DfE also released statistics on children missing education (CME), a new classification covering school-age children not enrolled at school and receiving “unsuitable” education. Last autumn, councils recorded 33,000 children missing education, compared with 24,000 in autumn 2022. Across the 2022-23 school year, councils recorded 117,000 CMEs at any point, compared with 95,000 the previous year. The DfE defines CME as children who are “not registered pupils at a school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school. This includes children who are awaiting a school place and children in receipt of unsuitable education, including those children local authorities are supporting to place into suitable education.” Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% Read more About 20% of cases last autumn were the result of a child moving out of the country or to another local authority, while 23% involved children who were waiting for a school place. About 44% of cases were for other reasons or not recorded. Just 6% of CME cases were attributed to “unsuitable” home education. Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, has said Labour would introduce a national register of children not in school, while the Conservative MP Flick Drummond has introduced a bill that would require local authorities to maintain a register of children not enrolled in a school. The DfE published new statutory guidance on school attendance on Thursday, to come into force next summer, which includes a ban on students attending protests. “Leave of absence should not be granted for a pupil to take part in protest activity during school hours,” the guidance states. Explore more on these topics Home schooling School attendance and absence School admissions Children Schools Department for Education England news Share Reuse this content According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images View image in fullscreen According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Number of children home schooled in England rises by more than 10,000 This article is more than 1 year old Mental health being increasingly cited as main reason for parents choosing home education, official figures find The number of children in England being home schooled increased by more than 10,000 last autumn, with mental health being increasingly cited by parents as the main reason, according to official figures. The statistics published by the Department for Education (DfE) showed that 92,000 children were recorded as being home schooled on one day last term, compared with 80,900 at the same point in autumn 2022. The government is launching a fresh push to improve school attendances in England, including a 33% increase in the cost of fines for unauthorised absences and a tougher line banning pupils from attending protests during school hours. Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says Read more The percentage of parents recording mental health as the primary reason for home education rose from 9% last year to 13%. “Philosophical” or “lifestyle” reasons accounted for 24%, while 40% were recorded as unknown, other or no reason. One per cent of parents cited religion as their primary reason for home schooling, while 3% cited bullying. Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “We are concerned that the increase in elective home education is in part a symptom of wider problems – such as unmet special education needs, and school anxiety and other mental health issues. “These are areas that are badly under-resourced, with huge pressures on school funding and an erosion in local support services.” According to the estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23, up from 116,000 in 2021-22. For the first time the DfE also released statistics on children missing education (CME), a new classification covering school-age children not enrolled at school and receiving “unsuitable” education. Last autumn, councils recorded 33,000 children missing education, compared with 24,000 in autumn 2022. Across the 2022-23 school year, councils recorded 117,000 CMEs at any point, compared with 95,000 the previous year. The DfE defines CME as children who are “not registered pupils at a school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school. This includes children who are awaiting a school place and children in receipt of unsuitable education, including those children local authorities are supporting to place into suitable education.” Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% Read more About 20% of cases last autumn were the result of a child moving out of the country or to another local authority, while 23% involved children who were waiting for a school place. About 44% of cases were for other reasons or not recorded. Just 6% of CME cases were attributed to “unsuitable” home education. Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, has said Labour would introduce a national register of children not in school, while the Conservative MP Flick Drummond has introduced a bill that would require local authorities to maintain a register of children not enrolled in a school. The DfE published new statutory guidance on school attendance on Thursday, to come into force next summer, which includes a ban on students attending protests. “Leave of absence should not be granted for a pupil to take part in protest activity during school hours,” the guidance states. Explore more on these topics Home schooling School attendance and absence School admissions Children Schools Department for Education England news Share Reuse this content According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images View image in fullscreen According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images View image in fullscreen According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images View image in fullscreen According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images View image in fullscreen According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images According to estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23. Photograph: Maskot/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Number of children home schooled in England rises by more than 10,000 This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Number of children home schooled in England rises by more than 10,000 This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Number of children home schooled in England rises by more than 10,000 This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Mental health being increasingly cited as main reason for parents choosing home education, official figures find Mental health being increasingly cited as main reason for parents choosing home education, official figures find Mental health being increasingly cited as main reason for parents choosing home education, official figures find The number of children in England being home schooled increased by more than 10,000 last autumn, with mental health being increasingly cited by parents as the main reason, according to official figures. The statistics published by the Department for Education (DfE) showed that 92,000 children were recorded as being home schooled on one day last term, compared with 80,900 at the same point in autumn 2022. The government is launching a fresh push to improve school attendances in England, including a 33% increase in the cost of fines for unauthorised absences and a tougher line banning pupils from attending protests during school hours. Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says Read more The percentage of parents recording mental health as the primary reason for home education rose from 9% last year to 13%. “Philosophical” or “lifestyle” reasons accounted for 24%, while 40% were recorded as unknown, other or no reason. One per cent of parents cited religion as their primary reason for home schooling, while 3% cited bullying. Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “We are concerned that the increase in elective home education is in part a symptom of wider problems – such as unmet special education needs, and school anxiety and other mental health issues. “These are areas that are badly under-resourced, with huge pressures on school funding and an erosion in local support services.” According to the estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23, up from 116,000 in 2021-22. For the first time the DfE also released statistics on children missing education (CME), a new classification covering school-age children not enrolled at school and receiving “unsuitable” education. Last autumn, councils recorded 33,000 children missing education, compared with 24,000 in autumn 2022. Across the 2022-23 school year, councils recorded 117,000 CMEs at any point, compared with 95,000 the previous year. The DfE defines CME as children who are “not registered pupils at a school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school. This includes children who are awaiting a school place and children in receipt of unsuitable education, including those children local authorities are supporting to place into suitable education.” Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% Read more About 20% of cases last autumn were the result of a child moving out of the country or to another local authority, while 23% involved children who were waiting for a school place. About 44% of cases were for other reasons or not recorded. Just 6% of CME cases were attributed to “unsuitable” home education. Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, has said Labour would introduce a national register of children not in school, while the Conservative MP Flick Drummond has introduced a bill that would require local authorities to maintain a register of children not enrolled in a school. The DfE published new statutory guidance on school attendance on Thursday, to come into force next summer, which includes a ban on students attending protests. “Leave of absence should not be granted for a pupil to take part in protest activity during school hours,” the guidance states. Explore more on these topics Home schooling School attendance and absence School admissions Children Schools Department for Education England news Share Reuse this content The number of children in England being home schooled increased by more than 10,000 last autumn, with mental health being increasingly cited by parents as the main reason, according to official figures. The statistics published by the Department for Education (DfE) showed that 92,000 children were recorded as being home schooled on one day last term, compared with 80,900 at the same point in autumn 2022. The government is launching a fresh push to improve school attendances in England, including a 33% increase in the cost of fines for unauthorised absences and a tougher line banning pupils from attending protests during school hours. Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says Read more The percentage of parents recording mental health as the primary reason for home education rose from 9% last year to 13%. “Philosophical” or “lifestyle” reasons accounted for 24%, while 40% were recorded as unknown, other or no reason. One per cent of parents cited religion as their primary reason for home schooling, while 3% cited bullying. Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “We are concerned that the increase in elective home education is in part a symptom of wider problems – such as unmet special education needs, and school anxiety and other mental health issues. “These are areas that are badly under-resourced, with huge pressures on school funding and an erosion in local support services.” According to the estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23, up from 116,000 in 2021-22. For the first time the DfE also released statistics on children missing education (CME), a new classification covering school-age children not enrolled at school and receiving “unsuitable” education. Last autumn, councils recorded 33,000 children missing education, compared with 24,000 in autumn 2022. Across the 2022-23 school year, councils recorded 117,000 CMEs at any point, compared with 95,000 the previous year. The DfE defines CME as children who are “not registered pupils at a school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school. This includes children who are awaiting a school place and children in receipt of unsuitable education, including those children local authorities are supporting to place into suitable education.” Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% Read more About 20% of cases last autumn were the result of a child moving out of the country or to another local authority, while 23% involved children who were waiting for a school place. About 44% of cases were for other reasons or not recorded. Just 6% of CME cases were attributed to “unsuitable” home education. Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, has said Labour would introduce a national register of children not in school, while the Conservative MP Flick Drummond has introduced a bill that would require local authorities to maintain a register of children not enrolled in a school. The DfE published new statutory guidance on school attendance on Thursday, to come into force next summer, which includes a ban on students attending protests. “Leave of absence should not be granted for a pupil to take part in protest activity during school hours,” the guidance states. Explore more on these topics Home schooling School attendance and absence School admissions Children Schools Department for Education England news Share Reuse this content The number of children in England being home schooled increased by more than 10,000 last autumn, with mental health being increasingly cited by parents as the main reason, according to official figures. The statistics published by the Department for Education (DfE) showed that 92,000 children were recorded as being home schooled on one day last term, compared with 80,900 at the same point in autumn 2022. The government is launching a fresh push to improve school attendances in England, including a 33% increase in the cost of fines for unauthorised absences and a tougher line banning pupils from attending protests during school hours. Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says Read more The percentage of parents recording mental health as the primary reason for home education rose from 9% last year to 13%. “Philosophical” or “lifestyle” reasons accounted for 24%, while 40% were recorded as unknown, other or no reason. One per cent of parents cited religion as their primary reason for home schooling, while 3% cited bullying. Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “We are concerned that the increase in elective home education is in part a symptom of wider problems – such as unmet special education needs, and school anxiety and other mental health issues. “These are areas that are badly under-resourced, with huge pressures on school funding and an erosion in local support services.” According to the estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23, up from 116,000 in 2021-22. For the first time the DfE also released statistics on children missing education (CME), a new classification covering school-age children not enrolled at school and receiving “unsuitable” education. Last autumn, councils recorded 33,000 children missing education, compared with 24,000 in autumn 2022. Across the 2022-23 school year, councils recorded 117,000 CMEs at any point, compared with 95,000 the previous year. The DfE defines CME as children who are “not registered pupils at a school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school. This includes children who are awaiting a school place and children in receipt of unsuitable education, including those children local authorities are supporting to place into suitable education.” Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% Read more About 20% of cases last autumn were the result of a child moving out of the country or to another local authority, while 23% involved children who were waiting for a school place. About 44% of cases were for other reasons or not recorded. Just 6% of CME cases were attributed to “unsuitable” home education. Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, has said Labour would introduce a national register of children not in school, while the Conservative MP Flick Drummond has introduced a bill that would require local authorities to maintain a register of children not enrolled in a school. The DfE published new statutory guidance on school attendance on Thursday, to come into force next summer, which includes a ban on students attending protests. “Leave of absence should not be granted for a pupil to take part in protest activity during school hours,” the guidance states. The number of children in England being home schooled increased by more than 10,000 last autumn, with mental health being increasingly cited by parents as the main reason, according to official figures. The statistics published by the Department for Education (DfE) showed that 92,000 children were recorded as being home schooled on one day last term, compared with 80,900 at the same point in autumn 2022. The government is launching a fresh push to improve school attendances in England, including a 33% increase in the cost of fines for unauthorised absences and a tougher line banning pupils from attending protests during school hours. Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says Read more The percentage of parents recording mental health as the primary reason for home education rose from 9% last year to 13%. “Philosophical” or “lifestyle” reasons accounted for 24%, while 40% were recorded as unknown, other or no reason. One per cent of parents cited religion as their primary reason for home schooling, while 3% cited bullying. Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “We are concerned that the increase in elective home education is in part a symptom of wider problems – such as unmet special education needs, and school anxiety and other mental health issues. “These are areas that are badly under-resourced, with huge pressures on school funding and an erosion in local support services.” According to the estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23, up from 116,000 in 2021-22. For the first time the DfE also released statistics on children missing education (CME), a new classification covering school-age children not enrolled at school and receiving “unsuitable” education. Last autumn, councils recorded 33,000 children missing education, compared with 24,000 in autumn 2022. Across the 2022-23 school year, councils recorded 117,000 CMEs at any point, compared with 95,000 the previous year. The DfE defines CME as children who are “not registered pupils at a school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school. This includes children who are awaiting a school place and children in receipt of unsuitable education, including those children local authorities are supporting to place into suitable education.” Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% Read more About 20% of cases last autumn were the result of a child moving out of the country or to another local authority, while 23% involved children who were waiting for a school place. About 44% of cases were for other reasons or not recorded. Just 6% of CME cases were attributed to “unsuitable” home education. Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, has said Labour would introduce a national register of children not in school, while the Conservative MP Flick Drummond has introduced a bill that would require local authorities to maintain a register of children not enrolled in a school. The DfE published new statutory guidance on school attendance on Thursday, to come into force next summer, which includes a ban on students attending protests. “Leave of absence should not be granted for a pupil to take part in protest activity during school hours,” the guidance states. The number of children in England being home schooled increased by more than 10,000 last autumn, with mental health being increasingly cited by parents as the main reason, according to official figures. The statistics published by the Department for Education (DfE) showed that 92,000 children were recorded as being home schooled on one day last term, compared with 80,900 at the same point in autumn 2022. The government is launching a fresh push to improve school attendances in England, including a 33% increase in the cost of fines for unauthorised absences and a tougher line banning pupils from attending protests during school hours. Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says Read more Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says Read more Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says Read more Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says Every year spent in school or university improves life expectancy, study says The percentage of parents recording mental health as the primary reason for home education rose from 9% last year to 13%. “Philosophical” or “lifestyle” reasons accounted for 24%, while 40% were recorded as unknown, other or no reason. One per cent of parents cited religion as their primary reason for home schooling, while 3% cited bullying. Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “We are concerned that the increase in elective home education is in part a symptom of wider problems – such as unmet special education needs, and school anxiety and other mental health issues. “These are areas that are badly under-resourced, with huge pressures on school funding and an erosion in local support services.” According to the estimates by local authorities, 126,000 children were home schooled at any point during 2022-23, up from 116,000 in 2021-22. For the first time the DfE also released statistics on children missing education (CME), a new classification covering school-age children not enrolled at school and receiving “unsuitable” education. Last autumn, councils recorded 33,000 children missing education, compared with 24,000 in autumn 2022. Across the 2022-23 school year, councils recorded 117,000 CMEs at any point, compared with 95,000 the previous year. The DfE defines CME as children who are “not registered pupils at a school and are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school. This includes children who are awaiting a school place and children in receipt of unsuitable education, including those children local authorities are supporting to place into suitable education.” Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% Read more Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% Read more Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% Read more Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% Fines for unauthorised absence from school in England to rise by 33% About 20% of cases last autumn were the result of a child moving out of the country or to another local authority, while 23% involved children who were waiting for a school place. About 44% of cases were for other reasons or not recorded. Just 6% of CME cases were attributed to “unsuitable” home education. Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, has said Labour would introduce a national register of children not in school, while the Conservative MP Flick Drummond has introduced a bill that would require local authorities to maintain a register of children not enrolled in a school. The DfE published new statutory guidance on school attendance on Thursday, to come into force next summer, which includes a ban on students attending protests. “Leave of absence should not be granted for a pupil to take part in protest activity during school hours,” the guidance states. Explore more on these topics Home schooling School attendance and absence School admissions Children Schools Department for Education England news Share Reuse this content Home schooling School attendance and absence School admissions Children Schools Department for Education England news |
Rish! cowers in No 10 as mob demands peace in lawless London
The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rish! cowers in No 10 as mob demands peace in lawless London This article is more than 1 year old John Crace Prime minister suffers acute fear and loathing whichever side of the looking-glass he chooses to live in UK politics live – latest updates T he United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind blew down Whitehall. The streets were nearly empty. The shops boarded up. Just a few veiled women, keeping their heads bowed as they hurried home. Inside 10 Downing Street, the prime minister cowered under his desk. “No more,” he sobbed. Over in City Hall, Sadiq Khan signed the death warrants of another 50 motorists who had failed to pay the Ulez charge. His original order had been that first offenders should only have both hands cut off, but he had been overruled by the ayatollahs. Sharia law should never be that lenient. In Threadneedle Street, Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, was pacing the vast boardroom. The woman he was expecting, the editor of the Financial Times, was late. On the table were laid out two bandanas and two suicide vests. In under an hour they – and Jeremy Hunt – would both be dead. Well, what would you do? After all that Jezza has done to the economy. The fight back of the deep state starts here. Still, the caliphate was expanding its reach. Down in the Cotswolds, Boris Johnson was being dragged through the centre of Chipping Norton. In an hour’s time he would be stoned to death. The punishment for adultery. Let him be an example to other politicians. Up in the balcony of the town hall, David Cameron – AKA Lord Big Dave – allowed himself a wry smile. He would be throwing the first stone. Er … actually, scrub that intro. That was the Lee Anderson and Liz Truss vision of Britain on Monday. It’s now Thursday. The United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind still blew down Whitehall. The streets were also still empty and the shops boarded up. And Rishi Sunak hadn’t moved since Monday. Nobody had managed to talk him out from under his desk. Out on Oxford Street, a group of murderous terrorists had formed an orderly queue outside Selfridges. They claimed to be waiting for the shop to open so that they could buy the new Call of Duty video game. But Rish! knew better. He alone had attended the Cobra briefing led by Suella Braverman. Before long, some of the terrorists would be waving flags and walking somewhere else. Some might even be smiling and demanding “peace”. Imagine that. It was the same throughout the rest of this once prosperous land. In the countryside, sheep were lying with donkeys and crops were rotting in the fields. The roads were unpassable, blocked by overturned cars and looted lorries. The sun no longer shone and beggars howled to the skies, their cries unanswered. Bodies lay unburied in the street. And still the mob demanded peace. James Cleverly was just the latest cabinet member to tiptoe into No 10 via the secret tunnel. It was far too dangerous for him to use the front door. He kept his head down in the corridors in case his movements attracted the attention of a sniper. He needed to coax the prime minister out. He hadn’t been to the toilet for days. “What do you want?” Rish! sobbed. “Leave me alone! Leave me alone!” “It’s OK,” said Jimmy Dimly tenderly. “Is it safe? Is it safe?” “Is what safe?” “Is it safe? Is it safe? The country has descended into mob rule. We no longer have a functioning government. By the way, who is the prime minister? And which party has been in power for the last 14 years?” “You don’t want to know,” said Jimmy D. “But I have a cunning plan. We’re going to let everyone have three protests and then say: ‘You’ve made your point. Enough is enough. Time to go home now and everything will be fine.’” “You say all the sweetest things, Jimmy,” said Rish!. “I don’t know where I’d be without you.” Weirdly, this wasn’t a line of reasoning that the security minister, Tom Tugendhat, chose to employ in his statement to the Commons on MPs’ safety. In fact, he got through the whole hour without mentioning the words “mob rule”. Almost as if he was a bit ashamed by his leader. Embarrassed by him. You get the feeling that the end of this parliament can’t come too soon for Tories like Tugendhat. Instead, Tugendhat just stuck to basics. MPs are increasingly under threat and need protection. No one was going to argue with that. Though he was understandably unwilling to think what might have prompted the surge in death threats. That it might have all kicked off with the coarsening of the debate during the Brexit years. Rightwing newspapers branding MPs and judges as traitors and enemies of the people. And the government just standing by in passive acceptance. Nodding it through. Back in Downing Street, Jimmy D was still trying to lure Sunak out. “It’s the big annual Tory fundraiser tonight. The Black and White ball,” Dimly explained. “We need to extract as much dosh as possible with the election coming.” “What have others given so far?” squeaked Rish!. “Let me see … Suella has offered a lifelong break in Rwanda. Stay in a two-star hotel. The advance bidding on that has been slow. And Honest Bob Jenrick is offering to help with controversial planning applications. Pornographers especially welcome …” “And what are you giving?’ “A luxury five-night stay on the Bibby Stockholm, with a banquet dinner cooked by 30p Lee.” “That’s amazing.” “In which case I will offer an honorary knighthood. Preferably to someone linked to my father-in-law’s business interests.” “You’re all heart,” said Jimmy Dimly. “All this giving is very tiring.” Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Conservatives Sadiq Khan Lee Anderson comment Share Reuse this content The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rish! cowers in No 10 as mob demands peace in lawless London This article is more than 1 year old John Crace Prime minister suffers acute fear and loathing whichever side of the looking-glass he chooses to live in UK politics live – latest updates T he United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind blew down Whitehall. The streets were nearly empty. The shops boarded up. Just a few veiled women, keeping their heads bowed as they hurried home. Inside 10 Downing Street, the prime minister cowered under his desk. “No more,” he sobbed. Over in City Hall, Sadiq Khan signed the death warrants of another 50 motorists who had failed to pay the Ulez charge. His original order had been that first offenders should only have both hands cut off, but he had been overruled by the ayatollahs. Sharia law should never be that lenient. In Threadneedle Street, Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, was pacing the vast boardroom. The woman he was expecting, the editor of the Financial Times, was late. On the table were laid out two bandanas and two suicide vests. In under an hour they – and Jeremy Hunt – would both be dead. Well, what would you do? After all that Jezza has done to the economy. The fight back of the deep state starts here. Still, the caliphate was expanding its reach. Down in the Cotswolds, Boris Johnson was being dragged through the centre of Chipping Norton. In an hour’s time he would be stoned to death. The punishment for adultery. Let him be an example to other politicians. Up in the balcony of the town hall, David Cameron – AKA Lord Big Dave – allowed himself a wry smile. He would be throwing the first stone. Er … actually, scrub that intro. That was the Lee Anderson and Liz Truss vision of Britain on Monday. It’s now Thursday. The United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind still blew down Whitehall. The streets were also still empty and the shops boarded up. And Rishi Sunak hadn’t moved since Monday. Nobody had managed to talk him out from under his desk. Out on Oxford Street, a group of murderous terrorists had formed an orderly queue outside Selfridges. They claimed to be waiting for the shop to open so that they could buy the new Call of Duty video game. But Rish! knew better. He alone had attended the Cobra briefing led by Suella Braverman. Before long, some of the terrorists would be waving flags and walking somewhere else. Some might even be smiling and demanding “peace”. Imagine that. It was the same throughout the rest of this once prosperous land. In the countryside, sheep were lying with donkeys and crops were rotting in the fields. The roads were unpassable, blocked by overturned cars and looted lorries. The sun no longer shone and beggars howled to the skies, their cries unanswered. Bodies lay unburied in the street. And still the mob demanded peace. James Cleverly was just the latest cabinet member to tiptoe into No 10 via the secret tunnel. It was far too dangerous for him to use the front door. He kept his head down in the corridors in case his movements attracted the attention of a sniper. He needed to coax the prime minister out. He hadn’t been to the toilet for days. “What do you want?” Rish! sobbed. “Leave me alone! Leave me alone!” “It’s OK,” said Jimmy Dimly tenderly. “Is it safe? Is it safe?” “Is what safe?” “Is it safe? Is it safe? The country has descended into mob rule. We no longer have a functioning government. By the way, who is the prime minister? And which party has been in power for the last 14 years?” “You don’t want to know,” said Jimmy D. “But I have a cunning plan. We’re going to let everyone have three protests and then say: ‘You’ve made your point. Enough is enough. Time to go home now and everything will be fine.’” “You say all the sweetest things, Jimmy,” said Rish!. “I don’t know where I’d be without you.” Weirdly, this wasn’t a line of reasoning that the security minister, Tom Tugendhat, chose to employ in his statement to the Commons on MPs’ safety. In fact, he got through the whole hour without mentioning the words “mob rule”. Almost as if he was a bit ashamed by his leader. Embarrassed by him. You get the feeling that the end of this parliament can’t come too soon for Tories like Tugendhat. Instead, Tugendhat just stuck to basics. MPs are increasingly under threat and need protection. No one was going to argue with that. Though he was understandably unwilling to think what might have prompted the surge in death threats. That it might have all kicked off with the coarsening of the debate during the Brexit years. Rightwing newspapers branding MPs and judges as traitors and enemies of the people. And the government just standing by in passive acceptance. Nodding it through. Back in Downing Street, Jimmy D was still trying to lure Sunak out. “It’s the big annual Tory fundraiser tonight. The Black and White ball,” Dimly explained. “We need to extract as much dosh as possible with the election coming.” “What have others given so far?” squeaked Rish!. “Let me see … Suella has offered a lifelong break in Rwanda. Stay in a two-star hotel. The advance bidding on that has been slow. And Honest Bob Jenrick is offering to help with controversial planning applications. Pornographers especially welcome …” “And what are you giving?’ “A luxury five-night stay on the Bibby Stockholm, with a banquet dinner cooked by 30p Lee.” “That’s amazing.” “In which case I will offer an honorary knighthood. Preferably to someone linked to my father-in-law’s business interests.” “You’re all heart,” said Jimmy Dimly. “All this giving is very tiring.” Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Conservatives Sadiq Khan Lee Anderson comment Share Reuse this content The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images The prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Photograph: WPA/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rish! cowers in No 10 as mob demands peace in lawless London This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old Rish! cowers in No 10 as mob demands peace in lawless London This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old Rish! cowers in No 10 as mob demands peace in lawless London This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old Rish! cowers in No 10 as mob demands peace in lawless London This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Prime minister suffers acute fear and loathing whichever side of the looking-glass he chooses to live in UK politics live – latest updates Prime minister suffers acute fear and loathing whichever side of the looking-glass he chooses to live in UK politics live – latest updates Prime minister suffers acute fear and loathing whichever side of the looking-glass he chooses to live in T he United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind blew down Whitehall. The streets were nearly empty. The shops boarded up. Just a few veiled women, keeping their heads bowed as they hurried home. Inside 10 Downing Street, the prime minister cowered under his desk. “No more,” he sobbed. Over in City Hall, Sadiq Khan signed the death warrants of another 50 motorists who had failed to pay the Ulez charge. His original order had been that first offenders should only have both hands cut off, but he had been overruled by the ayatollahs. Sharia law should never be that lenient. In Threadneedle Street, Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, was pacing the vast boardroom. The woman he was expecting, the editor of the Financial Times, was late. On the table were laid out two bandanas and two suicide vests. In under an hour they – and Jeremy Hunt – would both be dead. Well, what would you do? After all that Jezza has done to the economy. The fight back of the deep state starts here. Still, the caliphate was expanding its reach. Down in the Cotswolds, Boris Johnson was being dragged through the centre of Chipping Norton. In an hour’s time he would be stoned to death. The punishment for adultery. Let him be an example to other politicians. Up in the balcony of the town hall, David Cameron – AKA Lord Big Dave – allowed himself a wry smile. He would be throwing the first stone. Er … actually, scrub that intro. That was the Lee Anderson and Liz Truss vision of Britain on Monday. It’s now Thursday. The United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind still blew down Whitehall. The streets were also still empty and the shops boarded up. And Rishi Sunak hadn’t moved since Monday. Nobody had managed to talk him out from under his desk. Out on Oxford Street, a group of murderous terrorists had formed an orderly queue outside Selfridges. They claimed to be waiting for the shop to open so that they could buy the new Call of Duty video game. But Rish! knew better. He alone had attended the Cobra briefing led by Suella Braverman. Before long, some of the terrorists would be waving flags and walking somewhere else. Some might even be smiling and demanding “peace”. Imagine that. It was the same throughout the rest of this once prosperous land. In the countryside, sheep were lying with donkeys and crops were rotting in the fields. The roads were unpassable, blocked by overturned cars and looted lorries. The sun no longer shone and beggars howled to the skies, their cries unanswered. Bodies lay unburied in the street. And still the mob demanded peace. James Cleverly was just the latest cabinet member to tiptoe into No 10 via the secret tunnel. It was far too dangerous for him to use the front door. He kept his head down in the corridors in case his movements attracted the attention of a sniper. He needed to coax the prime minister out. He hadn’t been to the toilet for days. “What do you want?” Rish! sobbed. “Leave me alone! Leave me alone!” “It’s OK,” said Jimmy Dimly tenderly. “Is it safe? Is it safe?” “Is what safe?” “Is it safe? Is it safe? The country has descended into mob rule. We no longer have a functioning government. By the way, who is the prime minister? And which party has been in power for the last 14 years?” “You don’t want to know,” said Jimmy D. “But I have a cunning plan. We’re going to let everyone have three protests and then say: ‘You’ve made your point. Enough is enough. Time to go home now and everything will be fine.’” “You say all the sweetest things, Jimmy,” said Rish!. “I don’t know where I’d be without you.” Weirdly, this wasn’t a line of reasoning that the security minister, Tom Tugendhat, chose to employ in his statement to the Commons on MPs’ safety. In fact, he got through the whole hour without mentioning the words “mob rule”. Almost as if he was a bit ashamed by his leader. Embarrassed by him. You get the feeling that the end of this parliament can’t come too soon for Tories like Tugendhat. Instead, Tugendhat just stuck to basics. MPs are increasingly under threat and need protection. No one was going to argue with that. Though he was understandably unwilling to think what might have prompted the surge in death threats. That it might have all kicked off with the coarsening of the debate during the Brexit years. Rightwing newspapers branding MPs and judges as traitors and enemies of the people. And the government just standing by in passive acceptance. Nodding it through. Back in Downing Street, Jimmy D was still trying to lure Sunak out. “It’s the big annual Tory fundraiser tonight. The Black and White ball,” Dimly explained. “We need to extract as much dosh as possible with the election coming.” “What have others given so far?” squeaked Rish!. “Let me see … Suella has offered a lifelong break in Rwanda. Stay in a two-star hotel. The advance bidding on that has been slow. And Honest Bob Jenrick is offering to help with controversial planning applications. Pornographers especially welcome …” “And what are you giving?’ “A luxury five-night stay on the Bibby Stockholm, with a banquet dinner cooked by 30p Lee.” “That’s amazing.” “In which case I will offer an honorary knighthood. Preferably to someone linked to my father-in-law’s business interests.” “You’re all heart,” said Jimmy Dimly. “All this giving is very tiring.” Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Conservatives Sadiq Khan Lee Anderson comment Share Reuse this content T he United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind blew down Whitehall. The streets were nearly empty. The shops boarded up. Just a few veiled women, keeping their heads bowed as they hurried home. Inside 10 Downing Street, the prime minister cowered under his desk. “No more,” he sobbed. Over in City Hall, Sadiq Khan signed the death warrants of another 50 motorists who had failed to pay the Ulez charge. His original order had been that first offenders should only have both hands cut off, but he had been overruled by the ayatollahs. Sharia law should never be that lenient. In Threadneedle Street, Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, was pacing the vast boardroom. The woman he was expecting, the editor of the Financial Times, was late. On the table were laid out two bandanas and two suicide vests. In under an hour they – and Jeremy Hunt – would both be dead. Well, what would you do? After all that Jezza has done to the economy. The fight back of the deep state starts here. Still, the caliphate was expanding its reach. Down in the Cotswolds, Boris Johnson was being dragged through the centre of Chipping Norton. In an hour’s time he would be stoned to death. The punishment for adultery. Let him be an example to other politicians. Up in the balcony of the town hall, David Cameron – AKA Lord Big Dave – allowed himself a wry smile. He would be throwing the first stone. Er … actually, scrub that intro. That was the Lee Anderson and Liz Truss vision of Britain on Monday. It’s now Thursday. The United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind still blew down Whitehall. The streets were also still empty and the shops boarded up. And Rishi Sunak hadn’t moved since Monday. Nobody had managed to talk him out from under his desk. Out on Oxford Street, a group of murderous terrorists had formed an orderly queue outside Selfridges. They claimed to be waiting for the shop to open so that they could buy the new Call of Duty video game. But Rish! knew better. He alone had attended the Cobra briefing led by Suella Braverman. Before long, some of the terrorists would be waving flags and walking somewhere else. Some might even be smiling and demanding “peace”. Imagine that. It was the same throughout the rest of this once prosperous land. In the countryside, sheep were lying with donkeys and crops were rotting in the fields. The roads were unpassable, blocked by overturned cars and looted lorries. The sun no longer shone and beggars howled to the skies, their cries unanswered. Bodies lay unburied in the street. And still the mob demanded peace. James Cleverly was just the latest cabinet member to tiptoe into No 10 via the secret tunnel. It was far too dangerous for him to use the front door. He kept his head down in the corridors in case his movements attracted the attention of a sniper. He needed to coax the prime minister out. He hadn’t been to the toilet for days. “What do you want?” Rish! sobbed. “Leave me alone! Leave me alone!” “It’s OK,” said Jimmy Dimly tenderly. “Is it safe? Is it safe?” “Is what safe?” “Is it safe? Is it safe? The country has descended into mob rule. We no longer have a functioning government. By the way, who is the prime minister? And which party has been in power for the last 14 years?” “You don’t want to know,” said Jimmy D. “But I have a cunning plan. We’re going to let everyone have three protests and then say: ‘You’ve made your point. Enough is enough. Time to go home now and everything will be fine.’” “You say all the sweetest things, Jimmy,” said Rish!. “I don’t know where I’d be without you.” Weirdly, this wasn’t a line of reasoning that the security minister, Tom Tugendhat, chose to employ in his statement to the Commons on MPs’ safety. In fact, he got through the whole hour without mentioning the words “mob rule”. Almost as if he was a bit ashamed by his leader. Embarrassed by him. You get the feeling that the end of this parliament can’t come too soon for Tories like Tugendhat. Instead, Tugendhat just stuck to basics. MPs are increasingly under threat and need protection. No one was going to argue with that. Though he was understandably unwilling to think what might have prompted the surge in death threats. That it might have all kicked off with the coarsening of the debate during the Brexit years. Rightwing newspapers branding MPs and judges as traitors and enemies of the people. And the government just standing by in passive acceptance. Nodding it through. Back in Downing Street, Jimmy D was still trying to lure Sunak out. “It’s the big annual Tory fundraiser tonight. The Black and White ball,” Dimly explained. “We need to extract as much dosh as possible with the election coming.” “What have others given so far?” squeaked Rish!. “Let me see … Suella has offered a lifelong break in Rwanda. Stay in a two-star hotel. The advance bidding on that has been slow. And Honest Bob Jenrick is offering to help with controversial planning applications. Pornographers especially welcome …” “And what are you giving?’ “A luxury five-night stay on the Bibby Stockholm, with a banquet dinner cooked by 30p Lee.” “That’s amazing.” “In which case I will offer an honorary knighthood. Preferably to someone linked to my father-in-law’s business interests.” “You’re all heart,” said Jimmy Dimly. “All this giving is very tiring.” Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Conservatives Sadiq Khan Lee Anderson comment Share Reuse this content T he United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind blew down Whitehall. The streets were nearly empty. The shops boarded up. Just a few veiled women, keeping their heads bowed as they hurried home. Inside 10 Downing Street, the prime minister cowered under his desk. “No more,” he sobbed. Over in City Hall, Sadiq Khan signed the death warrants of another 50 motorists who had failed to pay the Ulez charge. His original order had been that first offenders should only have both hands cut off, but he had been overruled by the ayatollahs. Sharia law should never be that lenient. In Threadneedle Street, Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, was pacing the vast boardroom. The woman he was expecting, the editor of the Financial Times, was late. On the table were laid out two bandanas and two suicide vests. In under an hour they – and Jeremy Hunt – would both be dead. Well, what would you do? After all that Jezza has done to the economy. The fight back of the deep state starts here. Still, the caliphate was expanding its reach. Down in the Cotswolds, Boris Johnson was being dragged through the centre of Chipping Norton. In an hour’s time he would be stoned to death. The punishment for adultery. Let him be an example to other politicians. Up in the balcony of the town hall, David Cameron – AKA Lord Big Dave – allowed himself a wry smile. He would be throwing the first stone. Er … actually, scrub that intro. That was the Lee Anderson and Liz Truss vision of Britain on Monday. It’s now Thursday. The United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind still blew down Whitehall. The streets were also still empty and the shops boarded up. And Rishi Sunak hadn’t moved since Monday. Nobody had managed to talk him out from under his desk. Out on Oxford Street, a group of murderous terrorists had formed an orderly queue outside Selfridges. They claimed to be waiting for the shop to open so that they could buy the new Call of Duty video game. But Rish! knew better. He alone had attended the Cobra briefing led by Suella Braverman. Before long, some of the terrorists would be waving flags and walking somewhere else. Some might even be smiling and demanding “peace”. Imagine that. It was the same throughout the rest of this once prosperous land. In the countryside, sheep were lying with donkeys and crops were rotting in the fields. The roads were unpassable, blocked by overturned cars and looted lorries. The sun no longer shone and beggars howled to the skies, their cries unanswered. Bodies lay unburied in the street. And still the mob demanded peace. James Cleverly was just the latest cabinet member to tiptoe into No 10 via the secret tunnel. It was far too dangerous for him to use the front door. He kept his head down in the corridors in case his movements attracted the attention of a sniper. He needed to coax the prime minister out. He hadn’t been to the toilet for days. “What do you want?” Rish! sobbed. “Leave me alone! Leave me alone!” “It’s OK,” said Jimmy Dimly tenderly. “Is it safe? Is it safe?” “Is what safe?” “Is it safe? Is it safe? The country has descended into mob rule. We no longer have a functioning government. By the way, who is the prime minister? And which party has been in power for the last 14 years?” “You don’t want to know,” said Jimmy D. “But I have a cunning plan. We’re going to let everyone have three protests and then say: ‘You’ve made your point. Enough is enough. Time to go home now and everything will be fine.’” “You say all the sweetest things, Jimmy,” said Rish!. “I don’t know where I’d be without you.” Weirdly, this wasn’t a line of reasoning that the security minister, Tom Tugendhat, chose to employ in his statement to the Commons on MPs’ safety. In fact, he got through the whole hour without mentioning the words “mob rule”. Almost as if he was a bit ashamed by his leader. Embarrassed by him. You get the feeling that the end of this parliament can’t come too soon for Tories like Tugendhat. Instead, Tugendhat just stuck to basics. MPs are increasingly under threat and need protection. No one was going to argue with that. Though he was understandably unwilling to think what might have prompted the surge in death threats. That it might have all kicked off with the coarsening of the debate during the Brexit years. Rightwing newspapers branding MPs and judges as traitors and enemies of the people. And the government just standing by in passive acceptance. Nodding it through. Back in Downing Street, Jimmy D was still trying to lure Sunak out. “It’s the big annual Tory fundraiser tonight. The Black and White ball,” Dimly explained. “We need to extract as much dosh as possible with the election coming.” “What have others given so far?” squeaked Rish!. “Let me see … Suella has offered a lifelong break in Rwanda. Stay in a two-star hotel. The advance bidding on that has been slow. And Honest Bob Jenrick is offering to help with controversial planning applications. Pornographers especially welcome …” “And what are you giving?’ “A luxury five-night stay on the Bibby Stockholm, with a banquet dinner cooked by 30p Lee.” “That’s amazing.” “In which case I will offer an honorary knighthood. Preferably to someone linked to my father-in-law’s business interests.” “You’re all heart,” said Jimmy Dimly. “All this giving is very tiring.” Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Conservatives Sadiq Khan Lee Anderson comment Share Reuse this content T he United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind blew down Whitehall. The streets were nearly empty. The shops boarded up. Just a few veiled women, keeping their heads bowed as they hurried home. Inside 10 Downing Street, the prime minister cowered under his desk. “No more,” he sobbed. Over in City Hall, Sadiq Khan signed the death warrants of another 50 motorists who had failed to pay the Ulez charge. His original order had been that first offenders should only have both hands cut off, but he had been overruled by the ayatollahs. Sharia law should never be that lenient. In Threadneedle Street, Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, was pacing the vast boardroom. The woman he was expecting, the editor of the Financial Times, was late. On the table were laid out two bandanas and two suicide vests. In under an hour they – and Jeremy Hunt – would both be dead. Well, what would you do? After all that Jezza has done to the economy. The fight back of the deep state starts here. Still, the caliphate was expanding its reach. Down in the Cotswolds, Boris Johnson was being dragged through the centre of Chipping Norton. In an hour’s time he would be stoned to death. The punishment for adultery. Let him be an example to other politicians. Up in the balcony of the town hall, David Cameron – AKA Lord Big Dave – allowed himself a wry smile. He would be throwing the first stone. Er … actually, scrub that intro. That was the Lee Anderson and Liz Truss vision of Britain on Monday. It’s now Thursday. The United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind still blew down Whitehall. The streets were also still empty and the shops boarded up. And Rishi Sunak hadn’t moved since Monday. Nobody had managed to talk him out from under his desk. Out on Oxford Street, a group of murderous terrorists had formed an orderly queue outside Selfridges. They claimed to be waiting for the shop to open so that they could buy the new Call of Duty video game. But Rish! knew better. He alone had attended the Cobra briefing led by Suella Braverman. Before long, some of the terrorists would be waving flags and walking somewhere else. Some might even be smiling and demanding “peace”. Imagine that. It was the same throughout the rest of this once prosperous land. In the countryside, sheep were lying with donkeys and crops were rotting in the fields. The roads were unpassable, blocked by overturned cars and looted lorries. The sun no longer shone and beggars howled to the skies, their cries unanswered. Bodies lay unburied in the street. And still the mob demanded peace. James Cleverly was just the latest cabinet member to tiptoe into No 10 via the secret tunnel. It was far too dangerous for him to use the front door. He kept his head down in the corridors in case his movements attracted the attention of a sniper. He needed to coax the prime minister out. He hadn’t been to the toilet for days. “What do you want?” Rish! sobbed. “Leave me alone! Leave me alone!” “It’s OK,” said Jimmy Dimly tenderly. “Is it safe? Is it safe?” “Is what safe?” “Is it safe? Is it safe? The country has descended into mob rule. We no longer have a functioning government. By the way, who is the prime minister? And which party has been in power for the last 14 years?” “You don’t want to know,” said Jimmy D. “But I have a cunning plan. We’re going to let everyone have three protests and then say: ‘You’ve made your point. Enough is enough. Time to go home now and everything will be fine.’” “You say all the sweetest things, Jimmy,” said Rish!. “I don’t know where I’d be without you.” Weirdly, this wasn’t a line of reasoning that the security minister, Tom Tugendhat, chose to employ in his statement to the Commons on MPs’ safety. In fact, he got through the whole hour without mentioning the words “mob rule”. Almost as if he was a bit ashamed by his leader. Embarrassed by him. You get the feeling that the end of this parliament can’t come too soon for Tories like Tugendhat. Instead, Tugendhat just stuck to basics. MPs are increasingly under threat and need protection. No one was going to argue with that. Though he was understandably unwilling to think what might have prompted the surge in death threats. That it might have all kicked off with the coarsening of the debate during the Brexit years. Rightwing newspapers branding MPs and judges as traitors and enemies of the people. And the government just standing by in passive acceptance. Nodding it through. Back in Downing Street, Jimmy D was still trying to lure Sunak out. “It’s the big annual Tory fundraiser tonight. The Black and White ball,” Dimly explained. “We need to extract as much dosh as possible with the election coming.” “What have others given so far?” squeaked Rish!. “Let me see … Suella has offered a lifelong break in Rwanda. Stay in a two-star hotel. The advance bidding on that has been slow. And Honest Bob Jenrick is offering to help with controversial planning applications. Pornographers especially welcome …” “And what are you giving?’ “A luxury five-night stay on the Bibby Stockholm, with a banquet dinner cooked by 30p Lee.” “That’s amazing.” “In which case I will offer an honorary knighthood. Preferably to someone linked to my father-in-law’s business interests.” “You’re all heart,” said Jimmy Dimly. “All this giving is very tiring.” T he United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind blew down Whitehall. The streets were nearly empty. The shops boarded up. Just a few veiled women, keeping their heads bowed as they hurried home. Inside 10 Downing Street, the prime minister cowered under his desk. “No more,” he sobbed. Over in City Hall, Sadiq Khan signed the death warrants of another 50 motorists who had failed to pay the Ulez charge. His original order had been that first offenders should only have both hands cut off, but he had been overruled by the ayatollahs. Sharia law should never be that lenient. In Threadneedle Street, Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, was pacing the vast boardroom. The woman he was expecting, the editor of the Financial Times, was late. On the table were laid out two bandanas and two suicide vests. In under an hour they – and Jeremy Hunt – would both be dead. Well, what would you do? After all that Jezza has done to the economy. The fight back of the deep state starts here. Still, the caliphate was expanding its reach. Down in the Cotswolds, Boris Johnson was being dragged through the centre of Chipping Norton. In an hour’s time he would be stoned to death. The punishment for adultery. Let him be an example to other politicians. Up in the balcony of the town hall, David Cameron – AKA Lord Big Dave – allowed himself a wry smile. He would be throwing the first stone. Er … actually, scrub that intro. That was the Lee Anderson and Liz Truss vision of Britain on Monday. It’s now Thursday. The United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind still blew down Whitehall. The streets were also still empty and the shops boarded up. And Rishi Sunak hadn’t moved since Monday. Nobody had managed to talk him out from under his desk. Out on Oxford Street, a group of murderous terrorists had formed an orderly queue outside Selfridges. They claimed to be waiting for the shop to open so that they could buy the new Call of Duty video game. But Rish! knew better. He alone had attended the Cobra briefing led by Suella Braverman. Before long, some of the terrorists would be waving flags and walking somewhere else. Some might even be smiling and demanding “peace”. Imagine that. It was the same throughout the rest of this once prosperous land. In the countryside, sheep were lying with donkeys and crops were rotting in the fields. The roads were unpassable, blocked by overturned cars and looted lorries. The sun no longer shone and beggars howled to the skies, their cries unanswered. Bodies lay unburied in the street. And still the mob demanded peace. James Cleverly was just the latest cabinet member to tiptoe into No 10 via the secret tunnel. It was far too dangerous for him to use the front door. He kept his head down in the corridors in case his movements attracted the attention of a sniper. He needed to coax the prime minister out. He hadn’t been to the toilet for days. “What do you want?” Rish! sobbed. “Leave me alone! Leave me alone!” “It’s OK,” said Jimmy Dimly tenderly. “Is it safe? Is it safe?” “Is what safe?” “Is it safe? Is it safe? The country has descended into mob rule. We no longer have a functioning government. By the way, who is the prime minister? And which party has been in power for the last 14 years?” “You don’t want to know,” said Jimmy D. “But I have a cunning plan. We’re going to let everyone have three protests and then say: ‘You’ve made your point. Enough is enough. Time to go home now and everything will be fine.’” “You say all the sweetest things, Jimmy,” said Rish!. “I don’t know where I’d be without you.” Weirdly, this wasn’t a line of reasoning that the security minister, Tom Tugendhat, chose to employ in his statement to the Commons on MPs’ safety. In fact, he got through the whole hour without mentioning the words “mob rule”. Almost as if he was a bit ashamed by his leader. Embarrassed by him. You get the feeling that the end of this parliament can’t come too soon for Tories like Tugendhat. Instead, Tugendhat just stuck to basics. MPs are increasingly under threat and need protection. No one was going to argue with that. Though he was understandably unwilling to think what might have prompted the surge in death threats. That it might have all kicked off with the coarsening of the debate during the Brexit years. Rightwing newspapers branding MPs and judges as traitors and enemies of the people. And the government just standing by in passive acceptance. Nodding it through. Back in Downing Street, Jimmy D was still trying to lure Sunak out. “It’s the big annual Tory fundraiser tonight. The Black and White ball,” Dimly explained. “We need to extract as much dosh as possible with the election coming.” “What have others given so far?” squeaked Rish!. “Let me see … Suella has offered a lifelong break in Rwanda. Stay in a two-star hotel. The advance bidding on that has been slow. And Honest Bob Jenrick is offering to help with controversial planning applications. Pornographers especially welcome …” “And what are you giving?’ “A luxury five-night stay on the Bibby Stockholm, with a banquet dinner cooked by 30p Lee.” “That’s amazing.” “In which case I will offer an honorary knighthood. Preferably to someone linked to my father-in-law’s business interests.” “You’re all heart,” said Jimmy Dimly. “All this giving is very tiring.” T he United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind blew down Whitehall. The streets were nearly empty. The shops boarded up. Just a few veiled women, keeping their heads bowed as they hurried home. Inside 10 Downing Street, the prime minister cowered under his desk. “No more,” he sobbed. Over in City Hall, Sadiq Khan signed the death warrants of another 50 motorists who had failed to pay the Ulez charge. His original order had been that first offenders should only have both hands cut off, but he had been overruled by the ayatollahs. Sharia law should never be that lenient. In Threadneedle Street, Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, was pacing the vast boardroom. The woman he was expecting, the editor of the Financial Times, was late. On the table were laid out two bandanas and two suicide vests. In under an hour they – and Jeremy Hunt – would both be dead. Well, what would you do? After all that Jezza has done to the economy. The fight back of the deep state starts here. Still, the caliphate was expanding its reach. Down in the Cotswolds, Boris Johnson was being dragged through the centre of Chipping Norton. In an hour’s time he would be stoned to death. The punishment for adultery. Let him be an example to other politicians. Up in the balcony of the town hall, David Cameron – AKA Lord Big Dave – allowed himself a wry smile. He would be throwing the first stone. Er … actually, scrub that intro. That was the Lee Anderson and Liz Truss vision of Britain on Monday. It’s now Thursday. The United Kingdom, February 2024. A cold wind still blew down Whitehall. The streets were also still empty and the shops boarded up. And Rishi Sunak hadn’t moved since Monday. Nobody had managed to talk him out from under his desk. Out on Oxford Street, a group of murderous terrorists had formed an orderly queue outside Selfridges. They claimed to be waiting for the shop to open so that they could buy the new Call of Duty video game. But Rish! knew better. He alone had attended the Cobra briefing led by Suella Braverman. Before long, some of the terrorists would be waving flags and walking somewhere else. Some might even be smiling and demanding “peace”. Imagine that. It was the same throughout the rest of this once prosperous land. In the countryside, sheep were lying with donkeys and crops were rotting in the fields. The roads were unpassable, blocked by overturned cars and looted lorries. The sun no longer shone and beggars howled to the skies, their cries unanswered. Bodies lay unburied in the street. And still the mob demanded peace. James Cleverly was just the latest cabinet member to tiptoe into No 10 via the secret tunnel. It was far too dangerous for him to use the front door. He kept his head down in the corridors in case his movements attracted the attention of a sniper. He needed to coax the prime minister out. He hadn’t been to the toilet for days. “What do you want?” Rish! sobbed. “Leave me alone! Leave me alone!” “It’s OK,” said Jimmy Dimly tenderly. “Is it safe? Is it safe? The country has descended into mob rule. We no longer have a functioning government. By the way, who is the prime minister? And which party has been in power for the last 14 years?” “You don’t want to know,” said Jimmy D. “But I have a cunning plan. We’re going to let everyone have three protests and then say: ‘You’ve made your point. Enough is enough. Time to go home now and everything will be fine.’” “You say all the sweetest things, Jimmy,” said Rish!. “I don’t know where I’d be without you.” Weirdly, this wasn’t a line of reasoning that the security minister, Tom Tugendhat, chose to employ in his statement to the Commons on MPs’ safety. In fact, he got through the whole hour without mentioning the words “mob rule”. Almost as if he was a bit ashamed by his leader. Embarrassed by him. You get the feeling that the end of this parliament can’t come too soon for Tories like Tugendhat. Instead, Tugendhat just stuck to basics. MPs are increasingly under threat and need protection. No one was going to argue with that. Though he was understandably unwilling to think what might have prompted the surge in death threats. That it might have all kicked off with the coarsening of the debate during the Brexit years. Rightwing newspapers branding MPs and judges as traitors and enemies of the people. And the government just standing by in passive acceptance. Nodding it through. Back in Downing Street, Jimmy D was still trying to lure Sunak out. “It’s the big annual Tory fundraiser tonight. The Black and White ball,” Dimly explained. “We need to extract as much dosh as possible with the election coming.” “What have others given so far?” squeaked Rish!. “Let me see … Suella has offered a lifelong break in Rwanda. Stay in a two-star hotel. The advance bidding on that has been slow. And Honest Bob Jenrick is offering to help with controversial planning applications. Pornographers especially welcome …” “A luxury five-night stay on the Bibby Stockholm, with a banquet dinner cooked by 30p Lee.” “In which case I will offer an honorary knighthood. Preferably to someone linked to my father-in-law’s business interests.” “You’re all heart,” said Jimmy Dimly. “All this giving is very tiring.” Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Conservatives Sadiq Khan Lee Anderson comment Share Reuse this content Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Conservatives Sadiq Khan Lee Anderson comment |
‘Good times and dances might last for ever’: the sound of London’s Black gay scene
Flyers for Black gay club nights in London in the 1990s. Composite: Guardian Design/Calvin Dawkins/Jason Okundaye For many Black gay men in 1980s and 90s Britain, nightlife was community, family and lifeline – but its history is in danger of disappearing By Jason Okundaye R ecording Black British history often feels like a rescue effort and a race against time. There is a very real risk that if you don’t preserve certain events and memories, then they might be lost for ever. I think this is true of the histories of all people who have lived within the crowded margins of society. Living under a state that has historically deemed “other” people’s lives to be of little significance means that its institutions – whether art galleries, archives, libraries, museums or universities – may deny them a space in the public record, leaving them in danger of being forgotten. This institutional lack of interest means that much Black British history is contained within people’s private spaces: photo albums, VHS tapes, pamphlets gathering dust in an elder person’s attic, or memories of events, people and a different time. These materials disintegrate, are lost between homes or are unadaptable to modern technologies. A Black person in this country may have witnessed and participated in astonishing events or lively subcultures, but the memory and recollection of these will falter and eventually die with them. And so those of us who work to recover the stories and memories of our elders are as much emergency workers as we are historians and researchers. ‘Good times and dances might last for ever’: the sound of London’s Black gay scene – podcast Read more The 1967 decriminalisation of gay sex meant that men could be together in private, but they still needed places to meet in public. I wanted to uncover the cultural and social histories of Black gay men; where they danced and partied, and how they met one another before the age of mass digital communication. One of the most essential figures for understanding this social history of the scene for Black gay men is Calvin Dawkins: DJ Biggy C to his fans, Biggy to his friends. I learned that he’s also referred to by his friends as the “Kofi Annan” of the scene; someone who at one stage extended diplomatic relations between different factions and was able to smooth over tensions, and who, to this day, boasts an encyclopaedic knowledge of nearly every Black gay person there ever was in London. When I met Biggy in Brixton, south London, in 2021, he told me the story of his life, from troubled teenage runaway to international superstar DJ, illustrated with colourful old flyers and posters he’d kept hold of from nights he DJed at, such as Caribana, Big Tings and Bootylicious. His friend Marc Thompson describes Biggy as “playing the soundtrack to Black gay life back in those days”, and certainly the contribution of DJs and music makers in the construction of queer space and community is something that too often goes unsung. Too often, DJs and entertainers are accorded secondary importance in recounting a queer history that favours an activist narrative of grand political demonstrations, protests and clashes with the state. But Black gay men do not lead solely political existences – where there have been causes and struggles, there have also been promises of good times, good sex and good company. The altar of nightlife has for decades provided faith that good times and dances might last for ever, that hostility from outside need not lead to the end of life. D awkins has had the nickname Biggy since childhood; he reached 6ft 4in by his early teens. Like with all gentle giants, you feel safe in his presence. I’ve also heard Biggy play. He’s a regular fixture of Black queer nightlife – having been in the game for more than 40 years, his mixes have seen through successive generations of clubbers from the 80s hits of Salt-N-Pepa to contemporary Afroswing. Biggy was born in Wembley, north-west London, in 1966. He felt unlike other Black boys, both at school and at home, growing up with his three brothers, “butch boys” who were into football. At school he hung around white guys: Trojan skinheads who shared his appreciation for Black music, rather than white-power skinheads. He was into bluebeat, ska and two-tone, and with this early crowd he would go around wearing Levi Sta-Prest trousers, steel-toe boots and flight jackets. It caused tensions at home, which would eventually come to a head. “I kept on running away from home. When I just turned 16, I was away from the house for about a week,” Biggy told me. “And when I got back, my dad, who I found out years later wasn’t really my dad, just went crazy and started to fight me. And I remember punching him in his face and just running out of the house. I went and stayed with some friends. And maybe about a week later, after speaking to my mum on the phone, she packed a suitcase for me, gave me £50 and off I went into the world.” After Biggy had spent some time living with friends, his science teacher took pity and invited Biggy into his home. The teacher was a white gay man. “He didn’t come on to me, but I knew he was gay from things I found in his house, magazines and stuff.” The teacher lived with a Black man named Paul, who Biggy says was around his age at the time. Paul asked Biggy if he’d like to go to a club. “At the club I met another Black guy called Kenny, who I later found out they used to call Miss Barbados.” View image in fullscreen Biggy C in 1985. Photograph: Courtesy of Jason Okundaye Biggy had no money and couldn’t sign on to the dole as he wasn’t yet 18. He depended on the kindness of whoever would look after him. Kenny took him in for a few weeks until they learned of a room opening in a flat on the North Peckham Estate. This turned out to be the flat of a man called Richard Lindsay. Biggy and Kenny both moved into Lindsay’s flat in December 1982. Kenny later took Biggy to a party in north London. It was his first house party and he was a debutante on the scene. He attracted the attention of many boys – he was tall, slim and had a perm. Of all the new faces at this house party, the most important encounter would be with a man he still describes as his “father”, Patrick Liverpool. When Liverpool found out that Biggy had been living in Lindsay’s flat, he instantly protested in his booming Trinidadian voice: “No! You’re not living there. Nope, you’re coming with me!” In the archive of the Voice, Britain’s foremost Black newspaper, there are two articles that provide clarity on this. The first is a 1988 story about an “organised rent-boy network”: “Black boys as young as 14 were lured into a sordid male prostitution racket with promises of easy money, an Old Bailey jury heard last week.” Sure enough, the agency was said to be run by Lindsay, and it operated out of the North Peckham Estate, under the name Babe: Black and Beautiful Escorts. As the prosecutor, Lionel Lassman, said: “The rewards are substantial and the pickings are rich for the men who live parasitically and criminally off prostitution.” The second, dated 24 May 1988, is one of the most remarkable headlines I’ve ever seen: “Evil gay sex boss jailed”. It’s paired with an image of Lindsay dressed in designer sunglasses, a leather jacket and print trousers. Intergenerational social connections on the basis of shared identity could either provide a lifeline, or expose young people to danger. These young boys will have likely approached the older man with a need for security, shelter and money, and in turn were exploited. Being protected from predatory figures would depend on luck – meeting someone with good intentions, or hearing enough gossip about someone to avoid them. Y oung gay Black boys alienated from their families were often vulnerable and searching for community, and when they found it they were offered a new kind of kinship. For Biggy, who was welcomed into Liverpool’s fold, he found a home of cross-generational living based on love, support and acceptance. Liverpool wasn’t just a father to Biggy. He was a paternal figure on the Black gay scene in Brixton, perhaps even across England – Black gay men from all over would, one way or another, find themselves at his house. Born in Trinidad in 1935, he was a Windrush generation migrant who settled in Huddersfield, WestYorkshire, but, after coming out as a gay man, he left the north for south London in pursuit of an openly gay lifestyle. Biggy said: “He was always there when you needed a meal, somewhere safe to rest your head, or somewhere to bring your trade. He welcomed all into his world and I can say he was a true life-saver for me. He took me under his wing and became my father.” View image in fullscreen Patrick Liverpool in Brixton. Photograph: Calvin Dawkins Liverpool’s house was not only safe, it was also a playground for fun, creativity and feminine dressing. “There was a time when he’d have drag contests in his house,” Biggy said. Sundays were the main social day. “There’d be loads of people who just came to the house and chilled and ate and hung out and what not,” and parties would take place in the evening. These house parties were blues parties, a kind of function created and popularised by West Indian migrants in the 1950s and 60s, who created these spaces to hear their favourite music away from the racist door policies of West End clubs. Biggy began to lead music at these functions, playing reggae and soca to a house full of Black gay men. He remembers just how intimate and free the environment was: “Back then, you know, people used to hold each other. People used to ask each other to dance. You’d see someone in the corner and be like, ‘You wanna dance?’, dance with them, get a drink, maybe talk or maybe just move on to the next person. You could dance with the whole house. Everybody’s just so standoffish these days, you don’t see that any more.” One thing that’s particularly striking about Biggy’s recollection is the intergenerational aspects of these parties. “You had chickens and you had fowls. Back then I was chicken. Now I’d be considered an old fowl.” T he Black gay nightlife scene took Biggy and his friends into the West End. In the early 80s there were only a few Black gay nights, and most of them would be accessed through white promoters who specifically sought Black gay men to attend. Stallions was, for a time, the sole West End venue for Black gay men. Though grateful for these nightclub spaces, Biggy soon realised they weren’t playing the kind of music that he had grown up on – the clubs didn’t yet feel like home. Throughout the late 80s, Black gay nightclubs in Britain replicated the sounds of African American gay house DJs in New York and Chicago. That kind of pulsing dance music – while possessing its own transnational cultural significance for Black gay men and still enjoyed by many dancers – did not speak directly to the cultural heritage of Black British gay men, most of them first or second-generation migrants. At house parties, Biggy would play old reggae music, lovers’ rock and Studio One classics, and sought to curate spaces where other Black gay men could regularly hear these sounds. View image in fullscreen Flyer for Lift, a London club night. Photograph: Courtesy of Jason Okundaye He began these operations around 1988. He didn’t acquire the licence to any new nightclub – that would be difficult and expensive – instead, he used a host of abandoned buildings across Brixton. “Back in those days, you could just find an empty flat, an apartment or even an old house and just kick off the door. You could rig up the electricity, thief a fuse from somebody else’s house or whatever, and push it in the slot and you’d have lights, everything … There was an off-licence just on Effra Parade and there was this Black guy, Lloydy, and he would just give me £500 worth of drinks, and whatever I sold I’d just pay him for and return everything that I didn’t use, so I had that kind of setup with him. I’d mostly use abandoned buildings. And I had this thing, ‘Biggy and the Church Sisters’, this group of women – they’d come in and cook for me, and do all the food and bar and all of that stuff.” Biggy also recalls a white British Rasta man with dreadlocks, Mikey, who would supply him with a soundystem for his parties. “I used to get him with a lorry to come and unload and set up for me and all that stuff.” Hosting or attending an openly queer party or rave in those days was not without risk. Biggy remembers with cinematic clarity a brush with death at a party in Hackney, east London. I was curious to learn that this party was part of a culture of “BMW” parties – “black meets white” – which were intentionally interracial. At one party, a number of straight boys blithely entered the house. “And at first … they didn’t realise it was a gay party. And then the penny started to drop, you could see it. About half an hour after the guys left, we started hearing glass smashing and what not. They were throwing bricks.” It transpired that across the road from the BMW party there had been a “straight party” going on, and the guys who had accidentally stumbled into the BMW party had gone over and told them what was going on. “And they all came out and just got bricks and started smashing all the windows of the house.” While everybody in the front room ran to the back of the house, Biggy and three of his friends chose heroism. “We decided that we’re gonna be the ones to stop this, so we all ran outside on them and just start fighting in the street.” Fighting in the dark, Biggy was grabbed by one man: “He pushed me up against a car and I was punching him and punching him and I just felt something like he punched me in my side, and somebody was screaming, ‘Biggy, you’re bleeding! You’re bleeding!’ I saw blood on the side of my shirt. They drove me down to some hospital that was nearby. I was lucky, it didn’t really penetrate.” B iggy’s first big break with DJing came in 1989 at the superclub Heaven in London’s Charing Cross, at a night held on the venue’s upper floor called Fruit Machine. The night was not catered towards Black gay men specifically, but to those with a taste for Black music. Nonetheless, it became one of the biggest platforms for Biggy’s career and he transformed the music offering at the venue. Heaven has been a definitive space for gay culture, full of burlesque dancing, popper-sniffing and Castro clones, a descendant of the greaser subculture of the 1950s. And, among this, Biggy. “It was mostly soul and disco and a bit of pop, but I always had my section where I played some reggae, because you never heard reggae in Heaven.” Throughout the 1980s and 90s, many new venues and events began to appear – BADs, Jungle, Traffic, and others – that were populated by Black gay men. But these events were often set up by white men. I asked Biggy why he thinks this was so often the case. “I mean … well, first and foremost, I guess because they were attracted to Black guys, but it was also a money-making thing. I could see that. They made money off of us, and they still do.” Thompson takes a similar line, but also notes that the use of white promoters and night runners was often strategic: “If you were going out, you were going to the West End. So to get a space there, which you are going to say is Black and is gay and is run by Black people and gonna have Black DJs, you need a white man to front it. Because the people who owned those venues were going to be racist.” View image in fullscreen Biggy C in 2015. Photograph: David Morrison The notion of “for us, by us” – of Black ownership of entertainment spaces that weren’t taking place only in abandoned buildings – started to develop in the early 90s. Key to this development was the formation of an entertainment collective called the Black Experience. This was a group of Black gay men who had formed a network in north London, meeting around cruising spots in Finsbury Park. Like the blues parties of south London, they would occupy abandoned buildings for dancing and music, but they would go on to more formally establish themselves after an experience at Gay Pride in Kennington Park, 1991. I learned this story from a man named Lloyd Young, the only active member of the Black Experience that I could find to speak to. In the 80s and 90s, Pride had been a long march through central London, which would then assemble at one of the capital’s main parks with a festival-like setup. Young told me that two of his friends, Eddie and Tony, had arrived at Kennington Park with speakers and a ghetto blaster. They played music like Janet Jackson, SWV and 112 – Black music, but unlike the hi-NRG music that was often heard throughout the rest of Pride. While playing this music, this zone of Black men was confronted by white attenders who said things like, “You don’t look gay,” and, “Do you know what’s happening here?” Young said: “Next thing you know, the bobbies come walking over. ‘Excuse me, mate. You can’t play that kind of music here, this is not the place for that.’” After that unpleasantness at Kennington Park, Tony had resolved to approach Lambeth council about the lack of Black space at Pride. “He found out about their next committee meeting,” Young continues, “and was instrumental in infiltrating it. They refused to hear who we were, at first. We had to go into the chambers, or upstairs to a balcony and protest. Eventually we were heard, and the council said: ‘OK, at next year’s Pride, we’ll give you a space.’ After that we used to bring the Black Experience to Pride every year.” F or Black gay DJs like Biggy, there was a growing desire and impetus to take control of the spaces they were playing at, so that they could avoid lining the pockets of white promoters while simultaneously being undervalued by them. Biggy tells me about being disheartened viewing flyers of Fruit Machine and finding that his name would rarely be featured on them, collapsed into the “and others” postscript next to the capitalised names of white DJs. Having DJs at many white-owned and -operated nights such as this, being held accountable to the owners’ standards and desires, Biggy wanted the opportunity to control an event space that didn’t require him to kick down the doors of an abandoned house. “I wanted things my way,” he said. The opportunity presented itself in 1997 at Marlowe’s, a nightclub in New Cross. The manager had offered Biggy the opportunity to take on a legitimate licence for club nights. Biggy became a nightlife architect, and began his Saturday-night fixture, Big Tings. At its peak, Big Tings would see 500-600 clubbers, predominantly Black gays and lesbians. We were sitting talking in Biggy’s home, and he ran up the stairs, returning carrying a large shoebox. “I’ve got flyers for every club night I’ve ever DJed at in here,” he says, emptying the box and sending rave flyers scattering across the floor. He rummaged through them until he found a flyer that read “BIG TINGS @ Marlowe’s” and handed it over; on the reverse was the caption “XMAS AH COME!!” This was the first Big Tings, held on 13 December 1997 and featuring a dancehall queen competition, with a first prize of 2,500 Jamaican dollars (about £40). Nightclubs, music, blues parties and abandoned buildings are the scaffolding of the scene – what completes it is the people and community, the names and faces and friends and feuds. But among the brotherhood that blossomed and the tensions that bubbled, a ghostly atmosphere was developing. There was a silent acknowledgment that gay men were disappearing from public life, with whispers and rumours about the latest retreat. Biggy recalls seeing young men turn up to the club with visible purple patches and lesions on their skin from Kaposi’s sarcoma, one of the main cancers that would affect people with HIV. People didn’t really know what it was; there wasn’t the medical knowlege to understand what was going on. Black gay men were haunted by mystery illnesses. Tragedy would run riot. So many of these losses were due to HIV and Aids, but there were other spectres. Things happen to Black men in Britain that drive them to substance abuse, or into unsafe environments. Some succumb to illness, some take their own lives. Among all this misfortune, Biggy says that he became particularly fixated on the millennium. “I didn’t think I would reach it, to be honest, I always thought I would die by then.” Around him, around all these men, was so much loss and death. Party and protest: the radical history of gay liberation, Stonewall and Pride Read more Months after we met, Biggy messaged me to let me know he had retrieved a photo album that had been lost for more than a decade. We met again in Brixton to pore over photographs of him, Patrick Liverpool and the boys who would pass through his house, whether to live or to party. Flicking through, he would often interject with commentary. Some of it was putting faces to names – a photograph of Ronald, or “Miss Jamaica” in Brixton’s Windrush Square; some of it historical, pointing out men congregated outside the Prince of Wales pub, which is now a KFC; some of it heartwarming, like the successive series of photos of one boy, his muse, who at the time was the love of Biggy’s life; and some of it just shocking, with at least two of the men casually photographed in the album now imprisoned for murder. We went through this album with equal parts joy and sadness, but overriding this was the accomplished sense of a rich and varied life that contained many characters and, above all, a strong sense of community. This is an edited extract from Revolutionary Acts: Love & Brotherhood in Black Gay Britain by Jason Okundaye, published by Faber on 7 March and available at guardianbookshop.co.uk Explore more on these topics The long read Black British culture Sexuality LGBTQ+ rights Clubbing Reggae features Share Reuse this content Flyers for Black gay club nights in London in the 1990s. Composite: Guardian Design/Calvin Dawkins/Jason Okundaye For many Black gay men in 1980s and 90s Britain, nightlife was community, family and lifeline – but its history is in danger of disappearing By Jason Okundaye R ecording Black British history often feels like a rescue effort and a race against time. There is a very real risk that if you don’t preserve certain events and memories, then they might be lost for ever. I think this is true of the histories of all people who have lived within the crowded margins of society. Living under a state that has historically deemed “other” people’s lives to be of little significance means that its institutions – whether art galleries, archives, libraries, museums or universities – may deny them a space in the public record, leaving them in danger of being forgotten. This institutional lack of interest means that much Black British history is contained within people’s private spaces: photo albums, VHS tapes, pamphlets gathering dust in an elder person’s attic, or memories of events, people and a different time. These materials disintegrate, are lost between homes or are unadaptable to modern technologies. A Black person in this country may have witnessed and participated in astonishing events or lively subcultures, but the memory and recollection of these will falter and eventually die with them. And so those of us who work to recover the stories and memories of our elders are as much emergency workers as we are historians and researchers. ‘Good times and dances might last for ever’: the sound of London’s Black gay scene – podcast Read more The 1967 decriminalisation of gay sex meant that men could be together in private, but they still needed places to meet in public. I wanted to uncover the cultural and social histories of Black gay men; where they danced and partied, and how they met one another before the age of mass digital communication. One of the most essential figures for understanding this social history of the scene for Black gay men is Calvin Dawkins: DJ Biggy C to his fans, Biggy to his friends. I learned that he’s also referred to by his friends as the “Kofi Annan” of the scene; someone who at one stage extended diplomatic relations between different factions and was able to smooth over tensions, and who, to this day, boasts an encyclopaedic knowledge of nearly every Black gay person there ever was in London. When I met Biggy in Brixton, south London, in 2021, he told me the story of his life, from troubled teenage runaway to international superstar DJ, illustrated with colourful old flyers and posters he’d kept hold of from nights he DJed at, such as Caribana, Big Tings and Bootylicious. His friend Marc Thompson describes Biggy as “playing the soundtrack to Black gay life back in those days”, and certainly the contribution of DJs and music makers in the construction of queer space and community is something that too often goes unsung. Too often, DJs and entertainers are accorded secondary importance in recounting a queer history that favours an activist narrative of grand political demonstrations, protests and clashes with the state. But Black gay men do not lead solely political existences – where there have been causes and struggles, there have also been promises of good times, good sex and good company. The altar of nightlife has for decades provided faith that good times and dances might last for ever, that hostility from outside need not lead to the end of life. D awkins has had the nickname Biggy since childhood; he reached 6ft 4in by his early teens. Like with all gentle giants, you feel safe in his presence. I’ve also heard Biggy play. He’s a regular fixture of Black queer nightlife – having been in the game for more than 40 years, his mixes have seen through successive generations of clubbers from the 80s hits of Salt-N-Pepa to contemporary Afroswing. Biggy was born in Wembley, north-west London, in 1966. He felt unlike other Black boys, both at school and at home, growing up with his three brothers, “butch boys” who were into football. At school he hung around white guys: Trojan skinheads who shared his appreciation for Black music, rather than white-power skinheads. He was into bluebeat, ska and two-tone, and with this early crowd he would go around wearing Levi Sta-Prest trousers, steel-toe boots and flight jackets. It caused tensions at home, which would eventually come to a head. “I kept on running away from home. When I just turned 16, I was away from the house for about a week,” Biggy told me. “And when I got back, my dad, who I found out years later wasn’t really my dad, just went crazy and started to fight me. And I remember punching him in his face and just running out of the house. I went and stayed with some friends. And maybe about a week later, after speaking to my mum on the phone, she packed a suitcase for me, gave me £50 and off I went into the world.” After Biggy had spent some time living with friends, his science teacher took pity and invited Biggy into his home. The teacher was a white gay man. “He didn’t come on to me, but I knew he was gay from things I found in his house, magazines and stuff.” The teacher lived with a Black man named Paul, who Biggy says was around his age at the time. Paul asked Biggy if he’d like to go to a club. “At the club I met another Black guy called Kenny, who I later found out they used to call Miss Barbados.” View image in fullscreen Biggy C in 1985. Photograph: Courtesy of Jason Okundaye Biggy had no money and couldn’t sign on to the dole as he wasn’t yet 18. He depended on the kindness of whoever would look after him. Kenny took him in for a few weeks until they learned of a room opening in a flat on the North Peckham Estate. This turned out to be the flat of a man called Richard Lindsay. Biggy and Kenny both moved into Lindsay’s flat in December 1982. Kenny later took Biggy to a party in north London. It was his first house party and he was a debutante on the scene. He attracted the attention of many boys – he was tall, slim and had a perm. Of all the new faces at this house party, the most important encounter would be with a man he still describes as his “father”, Patrick Liverpool. When Liverpool found out that Biggy had been living in Lindsay’s flat, he instantly protested in his booming Trinidadian voice: “No! You’re not living there. Nope, you’re coming with me!” In the archive of the Voice, Britain’s foremost Black newspaper, there are two articles that provide clarity on this. The first is a 1988 story about an “organised rent-boy network”: “Black boys as young as 14 were lured into a sordid male prostitution racket with promises of easy money, an Old Bailey jury heard last week.” Sure enough, the agency was said to be run by Lindsay, and it operated out of the North Peckham Estate, under the name Babe: Black and Beautiful Escorts. As the prosecutor, Lionel Lassman, said: “The rewards are substantial and the pickings are rich for the men who live parasitically and criminally off prostitution.” The second, dated 24 May 1988, is one of the most remarkable headlines I’ve ever seen: “Evil gay sex boss jailed”. It’s paired with an image of Lindsay dressed in designer sunglasses, a leather jacket and print trousers. Intergenerational social connections on the basis of shared identity could either provide a lifeline, or expose young people to danger. These young boys will have likely approached the older man with a need for security, shelter and money, and in turn were exploited. Being protected from predatory figures would depend on luck – meeting someone with good intentions, or hearing enough gossip about someone to avoid them. Y oung gay Black boys alienated from their families were often vulnerable and searching for community, and when they found it they were offered a new kind of kinship. For Biggy, who was welcomed into Liverpool’s fold, he found a home of cross-generational living based on love, support and acceptance. Liverpool wasn’t just a father to Biggy. He was a paternal figure on the Black gay scene in Brixton, perhaps even across England – Black gay men from all over would, one way or another, find themselves at his house. Born in Trinidad in 1935, he was a Windrush generation migrant who settled in Huddersfield, WestYorkshire, but, after coming out as a gay man, he left the north for south London in pursuit of an openly gay lifestyle. Biggy said: “He was always there when you needed a meal, somewhere safe to rest your head, or somewhere to bring your trade. He welcomed all into his world and I can say he was a true life-saver for me. He took me under his wing and became my father.” View image in fullscreen Patrick Liverpool in Brixton. Photograph: Calvin Dawkins Liverpool’s house was not only safe, it was also a playground for fun, creativity and feminine dressing. “There was a time when he’d have drag contests in his house,” Biggy said. Sundays were the main social day. “There’d be loads of people who just came to the house and chilled and ate and hung out and what not,” and parties would take place in the evening. These house parties were blues parties, a kind of function created and popularised by West Indian migrants in the 1950s and 60s, who created these spaces to hear their favourite music away from the racist door policies of West End clubs. Biggy began to lead music at these functions, playing reggae and soca to a house full of Black gay men. He remembers just how intimate and free the environment was: “Back then, you know, people used to hold each other. People used to ask each other to dance. You’d see someone in the corner and be like, ‘You wanna dance?’, dance with them, get a drink, maybe talk or maybe just move on to the next person. You could dance with the whole house. Everybody’s just so standoffish these days, you don’t see that any more.” One thing that’s particularly striking about Biggy’s recollection is the intergenerational aspects of these parties. “You had chickens and you had fowls. Back then I was chicken. Now I’d be considered an old fowl.” T he Black gay nightlife scene took Biggy and his friends into the West End. In the early 80s there were only a few Black gay nights, and most of them would be accessed through white promoters who specifically sought Black gay men to attend. Stallions was, for a time, the sole West End venue for Black gay men. Though grateful for these nightclub spaces, Biggy soon realised they weren’t playing the kind of music that he had grown up on – the clubs didn’t yet feel like home. Throughout the late 80s, Black gay nightclubs in Britain replicated the sounds of African American gay house DJs in New York and Chicago. That kind of pulsing dance music – while possessing its own transnational cultural significance for Black gay men and still enjoyed by many dancers – did not speak directly to the cultural heritage of Black British gay men, most of them first or second-generation migrants. At house parties, Biggy would play old reggae music, lovers’ rock and Studio One classics, and sought to curate spaces where other Black gay men could regularly hear these sounds. View image in fullscreen Flyer for Lift, a London club night. Photograph: Courtesy of Jason Okundaye He began these operations around 1988. He didn’t acquire the licence to any new nightclub – that would be difficult and expensive – instead, he used a host of abandoned buildings across Brixton. “Back in those days, you could just find an empty flat, an apartment or even an old house and just kick off the door. You could rig up the electricity, thief a fuse from somebody else’s house or whatever, and push it in the slot and you’d have lights, everything … There was an off-licence just on Effra Parade and there was this Black guy, Lloydy, and he would just give me £500 worth of drinks, and whatever I sold I’d just pay him for and return everything that I didn’t use, so I had that kind of setup with him. I’d mostly use abandoned buildings. And I had this thing, ‘Biggy and the Church Sisters’, this group of women – they’d come in and cook for me, and do all the food and bar and all of that stuff.” Biggy also recalls a white British Rasta man with dreadlocks, Mikey, who would supply him with a soundystem for his parties. “I used to get him with a lorry to come and unload and set up for me and all that stuff.” Hosting or attending an openly queer party or rave in those days was not without risk. Biggy remembers with cinematic clarity a brush with death at a party in Hackney, east London. I was curious to learn that this party was part of a culture of “BMW” parties – “black meets white” – which were intentionally interracial. At one party, a number of straight boys blithely entered the house. “And at first … they didn’t realise it was a gay party. And then the penny started to drop, you could see it. About half an hour after the guys left, we started hearing glass smashing and what not. They were throwing bricks.” It transpired that across the road from the BMW party there had been a “straight party” going on, and the guys who had accidentally stumbled into the BMW party had gone over and told them what was going on. “And they all came out and just got bricks and started smashing all the windows of the house.” While everybody in the front room ran to the back of the house, Biggy and three of his friends chose heroism. “We decided that we’re gonna be the ones to stop this, so we all ran outside on them and just start fighting in the street.” Fighting in the dark, Biggy was grabbed by one man: “He pushed me up against a car and I was punching him and punching him and I just felt something like he punched me in my side, and somebody was screaming, ‘Biggy, you’re bleeding! You’re bleeding!’ I saw blood on the side of my shirt. They drove me down to some hospital that was nearby. I was lucky, it didn’t really penetrate.” B iggy’s first big break with DJing came in 1989 at the superclub Heaven in London’s Charing Cross, at a night held on the venue’s upper floor called Fruit Machine. The night was not catered towards Black gay men specifically, but to those with a taste for Black music. Nonetheless, it became one of the biggest platforms for Biggy’s career and he transformed the music offering at the venue. Heaven has been a definitive space for gay culture, full of burlesque dancing, popper-sniffing and Castro clones, a descendant of the greaser subculture of the 1950s. And, among this, Biggy. “It was mostly soul and disco and a bit of pop, but I always had my section where I played some reggae, because you never heard reggae in Heaven.” Throughout the 1980s and 90s, many new venues and events began to appear – BADs, Jungle, Traffic, and others – that were populated by Black gay men. But these events were often set up by white men. I asked Biggy why he thinks this was so often the case. “I mean … well, first and foremost, I guess because they were attracted to Black guys, but it was also a money-making thing. I could see that. They made money off of us, and they still do.” Thompson takes a similar line, but also notes that the use of white promoters and night runners was often strategic: “If you were going out, you were going to the West End. So to get a space there, which you are going to say is Black and is gay and is run by Black people and gonna have Black DJs, you need a white man to front it. Because the people who owned those venues were going to be racist.” View image in fullscreen Biggy C in 2015. Photograph: David Morrison The notion of “for us, by us” – of Black ownership of entertainment spaces that weren’t taking place only in abandoned buildings – started to develop in the early 90s. Key to this development was the formation of an entertainment collective called the Black Experience. This was a group of Black gay men who had formed a network in north London, meeting around cruising spots in Finsbury Park. Like the blues parties of south London, they would occupy abandoned buildings for dancing and music, but they would go on to more formally establish themselves after an experience at Gay Pride in Kennington Park, 1991. I learned this story from a man named Lloyd Young, the only active member of the Black Experience that I could find to speak to. In the 80s and 90s, Pride had been a long march through central London, which would then assemble at one of the capital’s main parks with a festival-like setup. Young told me that two of his friends, Eddie and Tony, had arrived at Kennington Park with speakers and a ghetto blaster. They played music like Janet Jackson, SWV and 112 – Black music, but unlike the hi-NRG music that was often heard throughout the rest of Pride. While playing this music, this zone of Black men was confronted by white attenders who said things like, “You don’t look gay,” and, “Do you know what’s happening here?” Young said: “Next thing you know, the bobbies come walking over. ‘Excuse me, mate. You can’t play that kind of music here, this is not the place for that.’” After that unpleasantness at Kennington Park, Tony had resolved to approach Lambeth council about the lack of Black space at Pride. “He found out about their next committee meeting,” Young continues, “and was instrumental in infiltrating it. They refused to hear who we were, at first. We had to go into the chambers, or upstairs to a balcony and protest. Eventually we were heard, and the council said: ‘OK, at next year’s Pride, we’ll give you a space.’ After that we used to bring the Black Experience to Pride every year.” F or Black gay DJs like Biggy, there was a growing desire and impetus to take control of the spaces they were playing at, so that they could avoid lining the pockets of white promoters while simultaneously being undervalued by them. Biggy tells me about being disheartened viewing flyers of Fruit Machine and finding that his name would rarely be featured on them, collapsed into the “and others” postscript next to the capitalised names of white DJs. Having DJs at many white-owned and -operated nights such as this, being held accountable to the owners’ standards and desires, Biggy wanted the opportunity to control an event space that didn’t require him to kick down the doors of an abandoned house. “I wanted things my way,” he said. The opportunity presented itself in 1997 at Marlowe’s, a nightclub in New Cross. The manager had offered Biggy the opportunity to take on a legitimate licence for club nights. Biggy became a nightlife architect, and began his Saturday-night fixture, Big Tings. At its peak, Big Tings would see 500-600 clubbers, predominantly Black gays and lesbians. We were sitting talking in Biggy’s home, and he ran up the stairs, returning carrying a large shoebox. “I’ve got flyers for every club night I’ve ever DJed at in here,” he says, emptying the box and sending rave flyers scattering across the floor. He rummaged through them until he found a flyer that read “BIG TINGS @ Marlowe’s” and handed it over; on the reverse was the caption “XMAS AH COME!!” This was the first Big Tings, held on 13 December 1997 and featuring a dancehall queen competition, with a first prize of 2,500 Jamaican dollars (about £40). Nightclubs, music, blues parties and abandoned buildings are the scaffolding of the scene – what completes it is the people and community, the names and faces and friends and feuds. But among the brotherhood that blossomed and the tensions that bubbled, a ghostly atmosphere was developing. There was a silent acknowledgment that gay men were disappearing from public life, with whispers and rumours about the latest retreat. Biggy recalls seeing young men turn up to the club with visible purple patches and lesions on their skin from Kaposi’s sarcoma, one of the main cancers that would affect people with HIV. People didn’t really know what it was; there wasn’t the medical knowlege to understand what was going on. Black gay men were haunted by mystery illnesses. Tragedy would run riot. So many of these losses were due to HIV and Aids, but there were other spectres. Things happen to Black men in Britain that drive them to substance abuse, or into unsafe environments. Some succumb to illness, some take their own lives. Among all this misfortune, Biggy says that he became particularly fixated on the millennium. “I didn’t think I would reach it, to be honest, I always thought I would die by then.” Around him, around all these men, was so much loss and death. Party and protest: the radical history of gay liberation, Stonewall and Pride Read more Months after we met, Biggy messaged me to let me know he had retrieved a photo album that had been lost for more than a decade. We met again in Brixton to pore over photographs of him, Patrick Liverpool and the boys who would pass through his house, whether to live or to party. Flicking through, he would often interject with commentary. Some of it was putting faces to names – a photograph of Ronald, or “Miss Jamaica” in Brixton’s Windrush Square; some of it historical, pointing out men congregated outside the Prince of Wales pub, which is now a KFC; some of it heartwarming, like the successive series of photos of one boy, his muse, who at the time was the love of Biggy’s life; and some of it just shocking, with at least two of the men casually photographed in the album now imprisoned for murder. We went through this album with equal parts joy and sadness, but overriding this was the accomplished sense of a rich and varied life that contained many characters and, above all, a strong sense of community. This is an edited extract from Revolutionary Acts: Love & Brotherhood in Black Gay Britain by Jason Okundaye, published by Faber on 7 March and available at guardianbookshop.co.uk Explore more on these topics The long read Black British culture Sexuality LGBTQ+ rights Clubbing Reggae features Share Reuse this content Flyers for Black gay club nights in London in the 1990s. Composite: Guardian Design/Calvin Dawkins/Jason Okundaye For many Black gay men in 1980s and 90s Britain, nightlife was community, family and lifeline – but its history is in danger of disappearing For many Black gay men in 1980s and 90s Britain, nightlife was community, family and lifeline – but its history is in danger of disappearing For many Black gay men in 1980s and 90s Britain, nightlife was community, family and lifeline – but its history is in danger of disappearing R ecording Black British history often feels like a rescue effort and a race against time. There is a very real risk that if you don’t preserve certain events and memories, then they might be lost for ever. I think this is true of the histories of all people who have lived within the crowded margins of society. Living under a state that has historically deemed “other” people’s lives to be of little significance means that its institutions – whether art galleries, archives, libraries, museums or universities – may deny them a space in the public record, leaving them in danger of being forgotten. This institutional lack of interest means that much Black British history is contained within people’s private spaces: photo albums, VHS tapes, pamphlets gathering dust in an elder person’s attic, or memories of events, people and a different time. These materials disintegrate, are lost between homes or are unadaptable to modern technologies. A Black person in this country may have witnessed and participated in astonishing events or lively subcultures, but the memory and recollection of these will falter and eventually die with them. And so those of us who work to recover the stories and memories of our elders are as much emergency workers as we are historians and researchers. ‘Good times and dances might last for ever’: the sound of London’s Black gay scene – podcast Read more The 1967 decriminalisation of gay sex meant that men could be together in private, but they still needed places to meet in public. I wanted to uncover the cultural and social histories of Black gay men; where they danced and partied, and how they met one another before the age of mass digital communication. One of the most essential figures for understanding this social history of the scene for Black gay men is Calvin Dawkins: DJ Biggy C to his fans, Biggy to his friends. I learned that he’s also referred to by his friends as the “Kofi Annan” of the scene; someone who at one stage extended diplomatic relations between different factions and was able to smooth over tensions, and who, to this day, boasts an encyclopaedic knowledge of nearly every Black gay person there ever was in London. When I met Biggy in Brixton, south London, in 2021, he told me the story of his life, from troubled teenage runaway to international superstar DJ, illustrated with colourful old flyers and posters he’d kept hold of from nights he DJed at, such as Caribana, Big Tings and Bootylicious. His friend Marc Thompson describes Biggy as “playing the soundtrack to Black gay life back in those days”, and certainly the contribution of DJs and music makers in the construction of queer space and community is something that too often goes unsung. Too often, DJs and entertainers are accorded secondary importance in recounting a queer history that favours an activist narrative of grand political demonstrations, protests and clashes with the state. But Black gay men do not lead solely political existences – where there have been causes and struggles, there have also been promises of good times, good sex and good company. The altar of nightlife has for decades provided faith that good times and dances might last for ever, that hostility from outside need not lead to the end of life. D awkins has had the nickname Biggy since childhood; he reached 6ft 4in by his early teens. Like with all gentle giants, you feel safe in his presence. I’ve also heard Biggy play. He’s a regular fixture of Black queer nightlife – having been in the game for more than 40 years, his mixes have seen through successive generations of clubbers from the 80s hits of Salt-N-Pepa to contemporary Afroswing. Biggy was born in Wembley, north-west London, in 1966. He felt unlike other Black boys, both at school and at home, growing up with his three brothers, “butch boys” who were into football. At school he hung around white guys: Trojan skinheads who shared his appreciation for Black music, rather than white-power skinheads. He was into bluebeat, ska and two-tone, and with this early crowd he would go around wearing Levi Sta-Prest trousers, steel-toe boots and flight jackets. It caused tensions at home, which would eventually come to a head. “I kept on running away from home. When I just turned 16, I was away from the house for about a week,” Biggy told me. “And when I got back, my dad, who I found out years later wasn’t really my dad, just went crazy and started to fight me. And I remember punching him in his
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Climate activists convicted of criminal damage after smashing glass door of JP Morgan
The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Climate activists convicted of criminal damage after smashing glass door of JP Morgan This article is more than 1 year old Activitists had used hammers and chisels to cause ‘many thousands of pounds’ of damage to the bank’s offices in London Five climate change activists have been convicted of smashing a glass revolving door at JP Morgan’s European headquarters after a judge said their beliefs did not “afford them a defence”. Stephanie Aylett, 29, Pamela Bellinger, 66, Amy Pritchard, 38, Adelheid Russenberger, 32 and Rosemary Webster, 66, used hammers and chisels to cause “many thousands of pounds” of damage during the Extinction Rebellion protest. They smashed a custom-built revolving door and a large glazed panel at the entrance to the US bank’s Victoria Embankment offices in the City of London on 1 September 2021. Pritchard told Inner London crown court the policies of JP Morgan had led to the deaths of “hundreds of thousands of children”. But the judge, Silas Reid, asked the jury to “put aside sympathy or prejudice” when the trial began. He said: “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change. This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that and nothing less.” The five women were convicted of causing criminal damage after a two-week trial. Reid adjourned sentencing until 7 June. Reid told the jury: “The reasons behind their protests don’t afford them a defence in this case. None of these defendants did these things for the fun of it, or because they are criminal people. “They did it because they honestly believed it was something they needed to do. Well, they are not allowed to do it. It is a crime.” During legal arguments Reid had ruled Aylett and her co-defendants could talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change in front of the jury. He said: “Ms Aylett is entitled to tell the jury about her beliefs. She is entitled to say what her beliefs about climate change are. “I would be shocked, having previously dealt with Ms Aylett, if the jury came to any conclusion other than that she holds her beliefs about climate change with anything other than the utmost honesty. “They are perfectly entitled to talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change. What they hoped to achieve must be relevant. “The depth to which they have feelings about something is potentially very important. What will not happen is the defendants using the witness box to further any protest.” Giving evidence, Russenberger told jurors: “Protest and direct action can, and does, lead to change … it’s through protest and direct action that we have the right to vote even if we don’t own property. “I do deny that the damage was criminal, not all damage is criminal. I thought about how the board at JP Morgan would surely want to know about what was happening. The prosecution said I was going to damage the building come what may but that is not the case. “I have never suggested that the board members of JP Morgan knew what they were doing was wrong. I damaged a window because I believed that the board members of JP Morgan would consent to the damage.” The five – Aylett, of St Albans, Herts; Bellinger, of Leicester; Pritchard, of Walthamstow; Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London; and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all denied but were convicted of criminal damage. Explore more on these topics UK news JP Morgan Extinction Rebellion Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Climate activists convicted of criminal damage after smashing glass door of JP Morgan This article is more than 1 year old Activitists had used hammers and chisels to cause ‘many thousands of pounds’ of damage to the bank’s offices in London Five climate change activists have been convicted of smashing a glass revolving door at JP Morgan’s European headquarters after a judge said their beliefs did not “afford them a defence”. Stephanie Aylett, 29, Pamela Bellinger, 66, Amy Pritchard, 38, Adelheid Russenberger, 32 and Rosemary Webster, 66, used hammers and chisels to cause “many thousands of pounds” of damage during the Extinction Rebellion protest. They smashed a custom-built revolving door and a large glazed panel at the entrance to the US bank’s Victoria Embankment offices in the City of London on 1 September 2021. Pritchard told Inner London crown court the policies of JP Morgan had led to the deaths of “hundreds of thousands of children”. But the judge, Silas Reid, asked the jury to “put aside sympathy or prejudice” when the trial began. He said: “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change. This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that and nothing less.” The five women were convicted of causing criminal damage after a two-week trial. Reid adjourned sentencing until 7 June. Reid told the jury: “The reasons behind their protests don’t afford them a defence in this case. None of these defendants did these things for the fun of it, or because they are criminal people. “They did it because they honestly believed it was something they needed to do. Well, they are not allowed to do it. It is a crime.” During legal arguments Reid had ruled Aylett and her co-defendants could talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change in front of the jury. He said: “Ms Aylett is entitled to tell the jury about her beliefs. She is entitled to say what her beliefs about climate change are. “I would be shocked, having previously dealt with Ms Aylett, if the jury came to any conclusion other than that she holds her beliefs about climate change with anything other than the utmost honesty. “They are perfectly entitled to talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change. What they hoped to achieve must be relevant. “The depth to which they have feelings about something is potentially very important. What will not happen is the defendants using the witness box to further any protest.” Giving evidence, Russenberger told jurors: “Protest and direct action can, and does, lead to change … it’s through protest and direct action that we have the right to vote even if we don’t own property. “I do deny that the damage was criminal, not all damage is criminal. I thought about how the board at JP Morgan would surely want to know about what was happening. The prosecution said I was going to damage the building come what may but that is not the case. “I have never suggested that the board members of JP Morgan knew what they were doing was wrong. I damaged a window because I believed that the board members of JP Morgan would consent to the damage.” The five – Aylett, of St Albans, Herts; Bellinger, of Leicester; Pritchard, of Walthamstow; Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London; and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all denied but were convicted of criminal damage. Explore more on these topics UK news JP Morgan Extinction Rebellion Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian View image in fullscreen The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian The JP Morgan office in Embankment, London. Photograph: Jill Mead/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Climate activists convicted of criminal damage after smashing glass door of JP Morgan This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Climate activists convicted of criminal damage after smashing glass door of JP Morgan This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Climate activists convicted of criminal damage after smashing glass door of JP Morgan This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Activitists had used hammers and chisels to cause ‘many thousands of pounds’ of damage to the bank’s offices in London Activitists had used hammers and chisels to cause ‘many thousands of pounds’ of damage to the bank’s offices in London Activitists had used hammers and chisels to cause ‘many thousands of pounds’ of damage to the bank’s offices in London Five climate change activists have been convicted of smashing a glass revolving door at JP Morgan’s European headquarters after a judge said their beliefs did not “afford them a defence”. Stephanie Aylett, 29, Pamela Bellinger, 66, Amy Pritchard, 38, Adelheid Russenberger, 32 and Rosemary Webster, 66, used hammers and chisels to cause “many thousands of pounds” of damage during the Extinction Rebellion protest. They smashed a custom-built revolving door and a large glazed panel at the entrance to the US bank’s Victoria Embankment offices in the City of London on 1 September 2021. Pritchard told Inner London crown court the policies of JP Morgan had led to the deaths of “hundreds of thousands of children”. But the judge, Silas Reid, asked the jury to “put aside sympathy or prejudice” when the trial began. He said: “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change. This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that and nothing less.” The five women were convicted of causing criminal damage after a two-week trial. Reid adjourned sentencing until 7 June. Reid told the jury: “The reasons behind their protests don’t afford them a defence in this case. None of these defendants did these things for the fun of it, or because they are criminal people. “They did it because they honestly believed it was something they needed to do. Well, they are not allowed to do it. It is a crime.” During legal arguments Reid had ruled Aylett and her co-defendants could talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change in front of the jury. He said: “Ms Aylett is entitled to tell the jury about her beliefs. She is entitled to say what her beliefs about climate change are. “I would be shocked, having previously dealt with Ms Aylett, if the jury came to any conclusion other than that she holds her beliefs about climate change with anything other than the utmost honesty. “They are perfectly entitled to talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change. What they hoped to achieve must be relevant. “The depth to which they have feelings about something is potentially very important. What will not happen is the defendants using the witness box to further any protest.” Giving evidence, Russenberger told jurors: “Protest and direct action can, and does, lead to change … it’s through protest and direct action that we have the right to vote even if we don’t own property. “I do deny that the damage was criminal, not all damage is criminal. I thought about how the board at JP Morgan would surely want to know about what was happening. The prosecution said I was going to damage the building come what may but that is not the case. “I have never suggested that the board members of JP Morgan knew what they were doing was wrong. I damaged a window because I believed that the board members of JP Morgan would consent to the damage.” The five – Aylett, of St Albans, Herts; Bellinger, of Leicester; Pritchard, of Walthamstow; Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London; and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all denied but were convicted of criminal damage. Explore more on these topics UK news JP Morgan Extinction Rebellion Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Five climate change activists have been convicted of smashing a glass revolving door at JP Morgan’s European headquarters after a judge said their beliefs did not “afford them a defence”. Stephanie Aylett, 29, Pamela Bellinger, 66, Amy Pritchard, 38, Adelheid Russenberger, 32 and Rosemary Webster, 66, used hammers and chisels to cause “many thousands of pounds” of damage during the Extinction Rebellion protest. They smashed a custom-built revolving door and a large glazed panel at the entrance to the US bank’s Victoria Embankment offices in the City of London on 1 September 2021. Pritchard told Inner London crown court the policies of JP Morgan had led to the deaths of “hundreds of thousands of children”. But the judge, Silas Reid, asked the jury to “put aside sympathy or prejudice” when the trial began. He said: “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change. This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that and nothing less.” The five women were convicted of causing criminal damage after a two-week trial. Reid adjourned sentencing until 7 June. Reid told the jury: “The reasons behind their protests don’t afford them a defence in this case. None of these defendants did these things for the fun of it, or because they are criminal people. “They did it because they honestly believed it was something they needed to do. Well, they are not allowed to do it. It is a crime.” During legal arguments Reid had ruled Aylett and her co-defendants could talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change in front of the jury. He said: “Ms Aylett is entitled to tell the jury about her beliefs. She is entitled to say what her beliefs about climate change are. “I would be shocked, having previously dealt with Ms Aylett, if the jury came to any conclusion other than that she holds her beliefs about climate change with anything other than the utmost honesty. “They are perfectly entitled to talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change. What they hoped to achieve must be relevant. “The depth to which they have feelings about something is potentially very important. What will not happen is the defendants using the witness box to further any protest.” Giving evidence, Russenberger told jurors: “Protest and direct action can, and does, lead to change … it’s through protest and direct action that we have the right to vote even if we don’t own property. “I do deny that the damage was criminal, not all damage is criminal. I thought about how the board at JP Morgan would surely want to know about what was happening. The prosecution said I was going to damage the building come what may but that is not the case. “I have never suggested that the board members of JP Morgan knew what they were doing was wrong. I damaged a window because I believed that the board members of JP Morgan would consent to the damage.” The five – Aylett, of St Albans, Herts; Bellinger, of Leicester; Pritchard, of Walthamstow; Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London; and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all denied but were convicted of criminal damage. Explore more on these topics UK news JP Morgan Extinction Rebellion Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Five climate change activists have been convicted of smashing a glass revolving door at JP Morgan’s European headquarters after a judge said their beliefs did not “afford them a defence”. Stephanie Aylett, 29, Pamela Bellinger, 66, Amy Pritchard, 38, Adelheid Russenberger, 32 and Rosemary Webster, 66, used hammers and chisels to cause “many thousands of pounds” of damage during the Extinction Rebellion protest. They smashed a custom-built revolving door and a large glazed panel at the entrance to the US bank’s Victoria Embankment offices in the City of London on 1 September 2021. Pritchard told Inner London crown court the policies of JP Morgan had led to the deaths of “hundreds of thousands of children”. But the judge, Silas Reid, asked the jury to “put aside sympathy or prejudice” when the trial began. He said: “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change. This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that and nothing less.” The five women were convicted of causing criminal damage after a two-week trial. Reid adjourned sentencing until 7 June. Reid told the jury: “The reasons behind their protests don’t afford them a defence in this case. None of these defendants did these things for the fun of it, or because they are criminal people. “They did it because they honestly believed it was something they needed to do. Well, they are not allowed to do it. It is a crime.” During legal arguments Reid had ruled Aylett and her co-defendants could talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change in front of the jury. He said: “Ms Aylett is entitled to tell the jury about her beliefs. She is entitled to say what her beliefs about climate change are. “I would be shocked, having previously dealt with Ms Aylett, if the jury came to any conclusion other than that she holds her beliefs about climate change with anything other than the utmost honesty. “They are perfectly entitled to talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change. What they hoped to achieve must be relevant. “The depth to which they have feelings about something is potentially very important. What will not happen is the defendants using the witness box to further any protest.” Giving evidence, Russenberger told jurors: “Protest and direct action can, and does, lead to change … it’s through protest and direct action that we have the right to vote even if we don’t own property. “I do deny that the damage was criminal, not all damage is criminal. I thought about how the board at JP Morgan would surely want to know about what was happening. The prosecution said I was going to damage the building come what may but that is not the case. “I have never suggested that the board members of JP Morgan knew what they were doing was wrong. I damaged a window because I believed that the board members of JP Morgan would consent to the damage.” The five – Aylett, of St Albans, Herts; Bellinger, of Leicester; Pritchard, of Walthamstow; Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London; and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all denied but were convicted of criminal damage. Five climate change activists have been convicted of smashing a glass revolving door at JP Morgan’s European headquarters after a judge said their beliefs did not “afford them a defence”. Stephanie Aylett, 29, Pamela Bellinger, 66, Amy Pritchard, 38, Adelheid Russenberger, 32 and Rosemary Webster, 66, used hammers and chisels to cause “many thousands of pounds” of damage during the Extinction Rebellion protest. They smashed a custom-built revolving door and a large glazed panel at the entrance to the US bank’s Victoria Embankment offices in the City of London on 1 September 2021. Pritchard told Inner London crown court the policies of JP Morgan had led to the deaths of “hundreds of thousands of children”. But the judge, Silas Reid, asked the jury to “put aside sympathy or prejudice” when the trial began. He said: “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change. This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that and nothing less.” The five women were convicted of causing criminal damage after a two-week trial. Reid adjourned sentencing until 7 June. Reid told the jury: “The reasons behind their protests don’t afford them a defence in this case. None of these defendants did these things for the fun of it, or because they are criminal people. “They did it because they honestly believed it was something they needed to do. Well, they are not allowed to do it. It is a crime.” During legal arguments Reid had ruled Aylett and her co-defendants could talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change in front of the jury. He said: “Ms Aylett is entitled to tell the jury about her beliefs. She is entitled to say what her beliefs about climate change are. “I would be shocked, having previously dealt with Ms Aylett, if the jury came to any conclusion other than that she holds her beliefs about climate change with anything other than the utmost honesty. “They are perfectly entitled to talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change. What they hoped to achieve must be relevant. “The depth to which they have feelings about something is potentially very important. What will not happen is the defendants using the witness box to further any protest.” Giving evidence, Russenberger told jurors: “Protest and direct action can, and does, lead to change … it’s through protest and direct action that we have the right to vote even if we don’t own property. “I do deny that the damage was criminal, not all damage is criminal. I thought about how the board at JP Morgan would surely want to know about what was happening. The prosecution said I was going to damage the building come what may but that is not the case. “I have never suggested that the board members of JP Morgan knew what they were doing was wrong. I damaged a window because I believed that the board members of JP Morgan would consent to the damage.” The five – Aylett, of St Albans, Herts; Bellinger, of Leicester; Pritchard, of Walthamstow; Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London; and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all denied but were convicted of criminal damage. Five climate change activists have been convicted of smashing a glass revolving door at JP Morgan’s European headquarters after a judge said their beliefs did not “afford them a defence”. Stephanie Aylett, 29, Pamela Bellinger, 66, Amy Pritchard, 38, Adelheid Russenberger, 32 and Rosemary Webster, 66, used hammers and chisels to cause “many thousands of pounds” of damage during the Extinction Rebellion protest. They smashed a custom-built revolving door and a large glazed panel at the entrance to the US bank’s Victoria Embankment offices in the City of London on 1 September 2021. Pritchard told Inner London crown court the policies of JP Morgan had led to the deaths of “hundreds of thousands of children”. But the judge, Silas Reid, asked the jury to “put aside sympathy or prejudice” when the trial began. He said: “You may have views about those actions or organisations, you may have views about climate change. This is not a trial about climate change. It is a trial about criminal damage. It is nothing more than that and nothing less.” The five women were convicted of causing criminal damage after a two-week trial. Reid adjourned sentencing until 7 June. Reid told the jury: “The reasons behind their protests don’t afford them a defence in this case. None of these defendants did these things for the fun of it, or because they are criminal people. “They did it because they honestly believed it was something they needed to do. Well, they are not allowed to do it. It is a crime.” During legal arguments Reid had ruled Aylett and her co-defendants could talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change in front of the jury. He said: “Ms Aylett is entitled to tell the jury about her beliefs. She is entitled to say what her beliefs about climate change are. “I would be shocked, having previously dealt with Ms Aylett, if the jury came to any conclusion other than that she holds her beliefs about climate change with anything other than the utmost honesty. “They are perfectly entitled to talk about their beliefs in relation to climate change. What they hoped to achieve must be relevant. “The depth to which they have feelings about something is potentially very important. What will not happen is the defendants using the witness box to further any protest.” Giving evidence, Russenberger told jurors: “Protest and direct action can, and does, lead to change … it’s through protest and direct action that we have the right to vote even if we don’t own property. “I do deny that the damage was criminal, not all damage is criminal. I thought about how the board at JP Morgan would surely want to know about what was happening. The prosecution said I was going to damage the building come what may but that is not the case. “I have never suggested that the board members of JP Morgan knew what they were doing was wrong. I damaged a window because I believed that the board members of JP Morgan would consent to the damage.” The five – Aylett, of St Albans, Herts; Bellinger, of Leicester; Pritchard, of Walthamstow; Russenberger, of Richmond-upon-Thames, south-west London; and Webster, of Dorchester, Dorset, all denied but were convicted of criminal damage. Explore more on these topics UK news JP Morgan Extinction Rebellion Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content UK news JP Morgan Extinction Rebellion Climate crisis news |
Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country
Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country This article is more than 1 year old John Crace PM spends 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions N othing shouts “Don’t panic! Don’t panic” more than a hastily arranged speech from the prime minister outside No 10 at 5.45pm on a Friday. Still, on the plus side, those who chose to carry on watching Pointless on BBC One won’t have missed a thing. It would have been hard to tell the two apart. Rishi Sunak is the politician’s anti-politician. If he ever came close to a real politician, he might dissolve on contact. Just as well there are so few of them in his cabinet. You could almost call it a talent – the unerring ability to do the wrong thing. To strike the wrong tone. To misjudge the situation. Every time you think things couldn’t get any worse, Rish! appears to say: “Hold my Coke.” This was meant to be Sunak at his most impassioned. Bringing the country together at what he thought was a time of crisis. Whether the election of George Galloway , thanks to the stupidity of Labour, really is a crisis is open to question. Clearly it’s a lot less than desirable. But a crisis? Galloway is just one of politics’ natural gobshites. The left’s version of Nigel Farage. A man whose prime cause is himself and who exists in a narcissistic bubble of trouble-making. A little man who gets off on division. Shakespeare’s words “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” could have been written for him. To treat him any more seriously is to indulge him. There was no real argument to Sunak’s speech. Nor was there any real rhetorical power. He is a prime minister unfortunately blessed with levitas. It’s almost impossible to take what he is saying seriously. Least of all in his speech was any policy. Sunak just wanted to spend 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions. Something he might have been better off doing with his therapist. If he hasn’t got one, he should find one urgently. What shone through his words was the absence. There was a hollow, a vacuum at the core of his message. Because what he was really crying out for was for someone – something – to come and take control. He wanted a government. He wanted a leader to make him feel safe. Because deep down, he knows he is not that man. As a prime minister, he is a fraud. At its most Freudian, this was Sunak’s primal scream for his daddy. Rish! approached the lectern trying to look purposeful. Though mostly just relieved that the rain had momentarily held off and he wasn’t going to get soaked. He began by describing the problem. Extremism was on the rise in the country. On the far left and on the far right. There was an increase in antisemitism. Jewish children afraid to walk to school. And an increase in hatred against Muslims, with women abused in the streets. There were threats to MPs in parliament. And now – the final straw – there was the election of Galloway in Rochdale. Democracy was now under threat. Weirdly, it never seemed to have occurred to Sunak to ask himself why this all might be happening on his watch. Such a lack of intellectual curiosity in a man who prides himself on being clever is breathtaking. Perhaps the denial is too great. Perhaps it needs to be; otherwise he could not get through the day. Let’s do the work for him. Let’s start with Brexit. Because that’s where political discourse in the country started to become more polarised and violent. Where was Rish! when the Daily Mail and the Telegraph called judges and remainer MPs “traitors” and “enemies of the people”? Cheering the newspapers on. That’s where. Where was Rish! when Boris Johnson upended centuries of accepted parliamentary procedure with the illegal prorogation? Cheerfully nodding it through. So forgive us if we don’t take Sunak as a democratic role model. Fast forward a few years. To Rish!’s term in office. Inviting Suella Braverman to be home secretary despite her being found to have broken the ministerial code. Minutes after Sunak promised to govern with “professionalism, integrity and accountability”. Then the prolonged attacks on refugees and minorities. The othering of people who couldn’t defend themselves. Just because he imagined it would go down well with the right wing of the Tory party. He practically introduced a daily 15 minute hate. George Orwell would have been horrified. Then to the present. A former prime minister, Liz Truss, who peddles conspiracy theories about the Bank of England being infiltrated by the deep state. Sunak just smiles indulgently. As he does with Lee Anderson. Rish! may have suspended 30p Lee but the body language indicates that he is still welcome. This from Anderson, who unrepentantly insists that the democratically elected London mayor is colluding with Muslim extremists. That London is in effect under sharia law. They’re the fantasies of a not very bright far-right droid. But Rish! essentially lets it go. Unable to say the I word: Islamophobia. On and on Sunak went about how the UK was close to breaking point. Does it feel that way to you? There was one laugh-out-loud moment when he appealed to those marching for peace not to let their protests be hijacked by extremists. Just a week ago, the prime minister was at a Welsh farmers’ protest that was hijacked by some climate crisis denial extremists. And Rish! was happy to have his photo taken with them. You couldn’t make this stuff up. The longer Sunak went on, the more desperate and the less effectual he sounded. And he was starting with a very low bar. We were basically a nice country, he said. Don’t let it be ruined by extremist idiots. Well, quite. He could start with those close to him. Democracy was increasingly fragile and needed protecting. Yup. Now remind me who elected the current prime minister. Or the one before that. Oh, that’s right. No one. This can’t go on. If Sunak really wants to know why the country feels as if it’s falling apart, it’s because we haven’t got a functioning government. All that he did get right was “enough is enough”. It is. Time for an election. Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Protest George Galloway Conservatives comment Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country This article is more than 1 year old John Crace PM spends 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions N othing shouts “Don’t panic! Don’t panic” more than a hastily arranged speech from the prime minister outside No 10 at 5.45pm on a Friday. Still, on the plus side, those who chose to carry on watching Pointless on BBC One won’t have missed a thing. It would have been hard to tell the two apart. Rishi Sunak is the politician’s anti-politician. If he ever came close to a real politician, he might dissolve on contact. Just as well there are so few of them in his cabinet. You could almost call it a talent – the unerring ability to do the wrong thing. To strike the wrong tone. To misjudge the situation. Every time you think things couldn’t get any worse, Rish! appears to say: “Hold my Coke.” This was meant to be Sunak at his most impassioned. Bringing the country together at what he thought was a time of crisis. Whether the election of George Galloway , thanks to the stupidity of Labour, really is a crisis is open to question. Clearly it’s a lot less than desirable. But a crisis? Galloway is just one of politics’ natural gobshites. The left’s version of Nigel Farage. A man whose prime cause is himself and who exists in a narcissistic bubble of trouble-making. A little man who gets off on division. Shakespeare’s words “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” could have been written for him. To treat him any more seriously is to indulge him. There was no real argument to Sunak’s speech. Nor was there any real rhetorical power. He is a prime minister unfortunately blessed with levitas. It’s almost impossible to take what he is saying seriously. Least of all in his speech was any policy. Sunak just wanted to spend 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions. Something he might have been better off doing with his therapist. If he hasn’t got one, he should find one urgently. What shone through his words was the absence. There was a hollow, a vacuum at the core of his message. Because what he was really crying out for was for someone – something – to come and take control. He wanted a government. He wanted a leader to make him feel safe. Because deep down, he knows he is not that man. As a prime minister, he is a fraud. At its most Freudian, this was Sunak’s primal scream for his daddy. Rish! approached the lectern trying to look purposeful. Though mostly just relieved that the rain had momentarily held off and he wasn’t going to get soaked. He began by describing the problem. Extremism was on the rise in the country. On the far left and on the far right. There was an increase in antisemitism. Jewish children afraid to walk to school. And an increase in hatred against Muslims, with women abused in the streets. There were threats to MPs in parliament. And now – the final straw – there was the election of Galloway in Rochdale. Democracy was now under threat. Weirdly, it never seemed to have occurred to Sunak to ask himself why this all might be happening on his watch. Such a lack of intellectual curiosity in a man who prides himself on being clever is breathtaking. Perhaps the denial is too great. Perhaps it needs to be; otherwise he could not get through the day. Let’s do the work for him. Let’s start with Brexit. Because that’s where political discourse in the country started to become more polarised and violent. Where was Rish! when the Daily Mail and the Telegraph called judges and remainer MPs “traitors” and “enemies of the people”? Cheering the newspapers on. That’s where. Where was Rish! when Boris Johnson upended centuries of accepted parliamentary procedure with the illegal prorogation? Cheerfully nodding it through. So forgive us if we don’t take Sunak as a democratic role model. Fast forward a few years. To Rish!’s term in office. Inviting Suella Braverman to be home secretary despite her being found to have broken the ministerial code. Minutes after Sunak promised to govern with “professionalism, integrity and accountability”. Then the prolonged attacks on refugees and minorities. The othering of people who couldn’t defend themselves. Just because he imagined it would go down well with the right wing of the Tory party. He practically introduced a daily 15 minute hate. George Orwell would have been horrified. Then to the present. A former prime minister, Liz Truss, who peddles conspiracy theories about the Bank of England being infiltrated by the deep state. Sunak just smiles indulgently. As he does with Lee Anderson. Rish! may have suspended 30p Lee but the body language indicates that he is still welcome. This from Anderson, who unrepentantly insists that the democratically elected London mayor is colluding with Muslim extremists. That London is in effect under sharia law. They’re the fantasies of a not very bright far-right droid. But Rish! essentially lets it go. Unable to say the I word: Islamophobia. On and on Sunak went about how the UK was close to breaking point. Does it feel that way to you? There was one laugh-out-loud moment when he appealed to those marching for peace not to let their protests be hijacked by extremists. Just a week ago, the prime minister was at a Welsh farmers’ protest that was hijacked by some climate crisis denial extremists. And Rish! was happy to have his photo taken with them. You couldn’t make this stuff up. The longer Sunak went on, the more desperate and the less effectual he sounded. And he was starting with a very low bar. We were basically a nice country, he said. Don’t let it be ruined by extremist idiots. Well, quite. He could start with those close to him. Democracy was increasingly fragile and needed protecting. Yup. Now remind me who elected the current prime minister. Or the one before that. Oh, that’s right. No one. This can’t go on. If Sunak really wants to know why the country feels as if it’s falling apart, it’s because we haven’t got a functioning government. All that he did get right was “enough is enough”. It is. Time for an election. Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Protest George Galloway Conservatives comment Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images Rishi Sunak makes his impromptu statement outside No 10 on Friday. Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country This article is more than 1 year old John Crace This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old PM spends 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions PM spends 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions PM spends 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions N othing shouts “Don’t panic! Don’t panic” more than a hastily arranged speech from the prime minister outside No 10 at 5.45pm on a Friday. Still, on the plus side, those who chose to carry on watching Pointless on BBC One won’t have missed a thing. It would have been hard to tell the two apart. Rishi Sunak is the politician’s anti-politician. If he ever came close to a real politician, he might dissolve on contact. Just as well there are so few of them in his cabinet. You could almost call it a talent – the unerring ability to do the wrong thing. To strike the wrong tone. To misjudge the situation. Every time you think things couldn’t get any worse, Rish! appears to say: “Hold my Coke.” This was meant to be Sunak at his most impassioned. Bringing the country together at what he thought was a time of crisis. Whether the election of George Galloway , thanks to the stupidity of Labour, really is a crisis is open to question. Clearly it’s a lot less than desirable. But a crisis? Galloway is just one of politics’ natural gobshites. The left’s version of Nigel Farage. A man whose prime cause is himself and who exists in a narcissistic bubble of trouble-making. A little man who gets off on division. Shakespeare’s words “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” could have been written for him. To treat him any more seriously is to indulge him. There was no real argument to Sunak’s speech. Nor was there any real rhetorical power. He is a prime minister unfortunately blessed with levitas. It’s almost impossible to take what he is saying seriously. Least of all in his speech was any policy. Sunak just wanted to spend 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions. Something he might have been better off doing with his therapist. If he hasn’t got one, he should find one urgently. What shone through his words was the absence. There was a hollow, a vacuum at the core of his message. Because what he was really crying out for was for someone – something – to come and take control. He wanted a government. He wanted a leader to make him feel safe. Because deep down, he knows he is not that man. As a prime minister, he is a fraud. At its most Freudian, this was Sunak’s primal scream for his daddy. Rish! approached the lectern trying to look purposeful. Though mostly just relieved that the rain had momentarily held off and he wasn’t going to get soaked. He began by describing the problem. Extremism was on the rise in the country. On the far left and on the far right. There was an increase in antisemitism. Jewish children afraid to walk to school. And an increase in hatred against Muslims, with women abused in the streets. There were threats to MPs in parliament. And now – the final straw – there was the election of Galloway in Rochdale. Democracy was now under threat. Weirdly, it never seemed to have occurred to Sunak to ask himself why this all might be happening on his watch. Such a lack of intellectual curiosity in a man who prides himself on being clever is breathtaking. Perhaps the denial is too great. Perhaps it needs to be; otherwise he could not get through the day. Let’s do the work for him. Let’s start with Brexit. Because that’s where political discourse in the country started to become more polarised and violent. Where was Rish! when the Daily Mail and the Telegraph called judges and remainer MPs “traitors” and “enemies of the people”? Cheering the newspapers on. That’s where. Where was Rish! when Boris Johnson upended centuries of accepted parliamentary procedure with the illegal prorogation? Cheerfully nodding it through. So forgive us if we don’t take Sunak as a democratic role model. Fast forward a few years. To Rish!’s term in office. Inviting Suella Braverman to be home secretary despite her being found to have broken the ministerial code. Minutes after Sunak promised to govern with “professionalism, integrity and accountability”. Then the prolonged attacks on refugees and minorities. The othering of people who couldn’t defend themselves. Just because he imagined it would go down well with the right wing of the Tory party. He practically introduced a daily 15 minute hate. George Orwell would have been horrified. Then to the present. A former prime minister, Liz Truss, who peddles conspiracy theories about the Bank of England being infiltrated by the deep state. Sunak just smiles indulgently. As he does with Lee Anderson. Rish! may have suspended 30p Lee but the body language indicates that he is still welcome. This from Anderson, who unrepentantly insists that the democratically elected London mayor is colluding with Muslim extremists. That London is in effect under sharia law. They’re the fantasies of a not very bright far-right droid. But Rish! essentially lets it go. Unable to say the I word: Islamophobia. On and on Sunak went about how the UK was close to breaking point. Does it feel that way to you? There was one laugh-out-loud moment when he appealed to those marching for peace not to let their protests be hijacked by extremists. Just a week ago, the prime minister was at a Welsh farmers’ protest that was hijacked by some climate crisis denial extremists. And Rish! was happy to have his photo taken with them. You couldn’t make this stuff up. The longer Sunak went on, the more desperate and the less effectual he sounded. And he was starting with a very low bar. We were basically a nice country, he said. Don’t let it be ruined by extremist idiots. Well, quite. He could start with those close to him. Democracy was increasingly fragile and needed protecting. Yup. Now remind me who elected the current prime minister. Or the one before that. Oh, that’s right. No one. This can’t go on. If Sunak really wants to know why the country feels as if it’s falling apart, it’s because we haven’t got a functioning government. All that he did get right was “enough is enough”. It is. Time for an election. Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Protest George Galloway Conservatives comment Share Reuse this content N othing shouts “Don’t panic! Don’t panic” more than a hastily arranged speech from the prime minister outside No 10 at 5.45pm on a Friday. Still, on the plus side, those who chose to carry on watching Pointless on BBC One won’t have missed a thing. It would have been hard to tell the two apart. Rishi Sunak is the politician’s anti-politician. If he ever came close to a real politician, he might dissolve on contact. Just as well there are so few of them in his cabinet. You could almost call it a talent – the unerring ability to do the wrong thing. To strike the wrong tone. To misjudge the situation. Every time you think things couldn’t get any worse, Rish! appears to say: “Hold my Coke.” This was meant to be Sunak at his most impassioned. Bringing the country together at what he thought was a time of crisis. Whether the election of George Galloway , thanks to the stupidity of Labour, really is a crisis is open to question. Clearly it’s a lot less than desirable. But a crisis? Galloway is just one of politics’ natural gobshites. The left’s version of Nigel Farage. A man whose prime cause is himself and who exists in a narcissistic bubble of trouble-making. A little man who gets off on division. Shakespeare’s words “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” could have been written for him. To treat him any more seriously is to indulge him. There was no real argument to Sunak’s speech. Nor was there any real rhetorical power. He is a prime minister unfortunately blessed with levitas. It’s almost impossible to take what he is saying seriously. Least of all in his speech was any policy. Sunak just wanted to spend 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions. Something he might have been better off doing with his therapist. If he hasn’t got one, he should find one urgently. What shone through his words was the absence. There was a hollow, a vacuum at the core of his message. Because what he was really crying out for was for someone – something – to come and take control. He wanted a government. He wanted a leader to make him feel safe. Because deep down, he knows he is not that man. As a prime minister, he is a fraud. At its most Freudian, this was Sunak’s primal scream for his daddy. Rish! approached the lectern trying to look purposeful. Though mostly just relieved that the rain had momentarily held off and he wasn’t going to get soaked. He began by describing the problem. Extremism was on the rise in the country. On the far left and on the far right. There was an increase in antisemitism. Jewish children afraid to walk to school. And an increase in hatred against Muslims, with women abused in the streets. There were threats to MPs in parliament. And now – the final straw – there was the election of Galloway in Rochdale. Democracy was now under threat. Weirdly, it never seemed to have occurred to Sunak to ask himself why this all might be happening on his watch. Such a lack of intellectual curiosity in a man who prides himself on being clever is breathtaking. Perhaps the denial is too great. Perhaps it needs to be; otherwise he could not get through the day. Let’s do the work for him. Let’s start with Brexit. Because that’s where political discourse in the country started to become more polarised and violent. Where was Rish! when the Daily Mail and the Telegraph called judges and remainer MPs “traitors” and “enemies of the people”? Cheering the newspapers on. That’s where. Where was Rish! when Boris Johnson upended centuries of accepted parliamentary procedure with the illegal prorogation? Cheerfully nodding it through. So forgive us if we don’t take Sunak as a democratic role model. Fast forward a few years. To Rish!’s term in office. Inviting Suella Braverman to be home secretary despite her being found to have broken the ministerial code. Minutes after Sunak promised to govern with “professionalism, integrity and accountability”. Then the prolonged attacks on refugees and minorities. The othering of people who couldn’t defend themselves. Just because he imagined it would go down well with the right wing of the Tory party. He practically introduced a daily 15 minute hate. George Orwell would have been horrified. Then to the present. A former prime minister, Liz Truss, who peddles conspiracy theories about the Bank of England being infiltrated by the deep state. Sunak just smiles indulgently. As he does with Lee Anderson. Rish! may have suspended 30p Lee but the body language indicates that he is still welcome. This from Anderson, who unrepentantly insists that the democratically elected London mayor is colluding with Muslim extremists. That London is in effect under sharia law. They’re the fantasies of a not very bright far-right droid. But Rish! essentially lets it go. Unable to say the I word: Islamophobia. On and on Sunak went about how the UK was close to breaking point. Does it feel that way to you? There was one laugh-out-loud moment when he appealed to those marching for peace not to let their protests be hijacked by extremists. Just a week ago, the prime minister was at a Welsh farmers’ protest that was hijacked by some climate crisis denial extremists. And Rish! was happy to have his photo taken with them. You couldn’t make this stuff up. The longer Sunak went on, the more desperate and the less effectual he sounded. And he was starting with a very low bar. We were basically a nice country, he said. Don’t let it be ruined by extremist idiots. Well, quite. He could start with those close to him. Democracy was increasingly fragile and needed protecting. Yup. Now remind me who elected the current prime minister. Or the one before that. Oh, that’s right. No one. This can’t go on. If Sunak really wants to know why the country feels as if it’s falling apart, it’s because we haven’t got a functioning government. All that he did get right was “enough is enough”. It is. Time for an election. Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Protest George Galloway Conservatives comment Share Reuse this content N othing shouts “Don’t panic! Don’t panic” more than a hastily arranged speech from the prime minister outside No 10 at 5.45pm on a Friday. Still, on the plus side, those who chose to carry on watching Pointless on BBC One won’t have missed a thing. It would have been hard to tell the two apart. Rishi Sunak is the politician’s anti-politician. If he ever came close to a real politician, he might dissolve on contact. Just as well there are so few of them in his cabinet. You could almost call it a talent – the unerring ability to do the wrong thing. To strike the wrong tone. To misjudge the situation. Every time you think things couldn’t get any worse, Rish! appears to say: “Hold my Coke.” This was meant to be Sunak at his most impassioned. Bringing the country together at what he thought was a time of crisis. Whether the election of George Galloway , thanks to the stupidity of Labour, really is a crisis is open to question. Clearly it’s a lot less than desirable. But a crisis? Galloway is just one of politics’ natural gobshites. The left’s version of Nigel Farage. A man whose prime cause is himself and who exists in a narcissistic bubble of trouble-making. A little man who gets off on division. Shakespeare’s words “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” could have been written for him. To treat him any more seriously is to indulge him. There was no real argument to Sunak’s speech. Nor was there any real rhetorical power. He is a prime minister unfortunately blessed with levitas. It’s almost impossible to take what he is saying seriously. Least of all in his speech was any policy. Sunak just wanted to spend 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions. Something he might have been better off doing with his therapist. If he hasn’t got one, he should find one urgently. What shone through his words was the absence. There was a hollow, a vacuum at the core of his message. Because what he was really crying out for was for someone – something – to come and take control. He wanted a government. He wanted a leader to make him feel safe. Because deep down, he knows he is not that man. As a prime minister, he is a fraud. At its most Freudian, this was Sunak’s primal scream for his daddy. Rish! approached the lectern trying to look purposeful. Though mostly just relieved that the rain had momentarily held off and he wasn’t going to get soaked. He began by describing the problem. Extremism was on the rise in the country. On the far left and on the far right. There was an increase in antisemitism. Jewish children afraid to walk to school. And an increase in hatred against Muslims, with women abused in the streets. There were threats to MPs in parliament. And now – the final straw – there was the election of Galloway in Rochdale. Democracy was now under threat. Weirdly, it never seemed to have occurred to Sunak to ask himself why this all might be happening on his watch. Such a lack of intellectual curiosity in a man who prides himself on being clever is breathtaking. Perhaps the denial is too great. Perhaps it needs to be; otherwise he could not get through the day. Let’s do the work for him. Let’s start with Brexit. Because that’s where political discourse in the country started to become more polarised and violent. Where was Rish! when the Daily Mail and the Telegraph called judges and remainer MPs “traitors” and “enemies of the people”? Cheering the newspapers on. That’s where. Where was Rish! when Boris Johnson upended centuries of accepted parliamentary procedure with the illegal prorogation? Cheerfully nodding it through. So forgive us if we don’t take Sunak as a democratic role model. Fast forward a few years. To Rish!’s term in office. Inviting Suella Braverman to be home secretary despite her being found to have broken the ministerial code. Minutes after Sunak promised to govern with “professionalism, integrity and accountability”. Then the prolonged attacks on refugees and minorities. The othering of people who couldn’t defend themselves. Just because he imagined it would go down well with the right wing of the Tory party. He practically introduced a daily 15 minute hate. George Orwell would have been horrified. Then to the present. A former prime minister, Liz Truss, who peddles conspiracy theories about the Bank of England being infiltrated by the deep state. Sunak just smiles indulgently. As he does with Lee Anderson. Rish! may have suspended 30p Lee but the body language indicates that he is still welcome. This from Anderson, who unrepentantly insists that the democratically elected London mayor is colluding with Muslim extremists. That London is in effect under sharia law. They’re the fantasies of a not very bright far-right droid. But Rish! essentially lets it go. Unable to say the I word: Islamophobia. On and on Sunak went about how the UK was close to breaking point. Does it feel that way to you? There was one laugh-out-loud moment when he appealed to those marching for peace not to let their protests be hijacked by extremists. Just a week ago, the prime minister was at a Welsh farmers’ protest that was hijacked by some climate crisis denial extremists. And Rish! was happy to have his photo taken with them. You couldn’t make this stuff up. The longer Sunak went on, the more desperate and the less effectual he sounded. And he was starting with a very low bar. We were basically a nice country, he said. Don’t let it be ruined by extremist idiots. Well, quite. He could start with those close to him. Democracy was increasingly fragile and needed protecting. Yup. Now remind me who elected the current prime minister. Or the one before that. Oh, that’s right. No one. This can’t go on. If Sunak really wants to know why the country feels as if it’s falling apart, it’s because we haven’t got a functioning government. All that he did get right was “enough is enough”. It is. Time for an election. Explore more on these topics Politics The politics sketch Rishi Sunak Protest George Galloway Conservatives comment Share Reuse this content N othing shouts “Don’t panic! Don’t panic” more than a hastily arranged speech from the prime minister outside No 10 at 5.45pm on a Friday. Still, on the plus side, those who chose to carry on watching Pointless on BBC One won’t have missed a thing. It would have been hard to tell the two apart. Rishi Sunak is the politician’s anti-politician. If he ever came close to a real politician, he might dissolve on contact. Just as well there are so few of them in his cabinet. You could almost call it a talent – the unerring ability to do the wrong thing. To strike the wrong tone. To misjudge the situation. Every time you think things couldn’t get any worse, Rish! appears to say: “Hold my Coke.” This was meant to be Sunak at his most impassioned. Bringing the country together at what he thought was a time of crisis. Whether the election of George Galloway , thanks to the stupidity of Labour, really is a crisis is open to question. Clearly it’s a lot less than desirable. But a crisis? Galloway is just one of politics’ natural gobshites. The left’s version of Nigel Farage. A man whose prime cause is himself and who exists in a narcissistic bubble of trouble-making. A little man who gets off on division. Shakespeare’s words “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” could have been written for him. To treat him any more seriously is to indulge him. There was no real argument to Sunak’s speech. Nor was there any real rhetorical power. He is a prime minister unfortunately blessed with levitas. It’s almost impossible to take what he is saying seriously. Least of all in his speech was any policy. Sunak just wanted to spend 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions. Something he might have been better off doing with his therapist. If he hasn’t got one, he should find one urgently. What shone through his words was the absence. There was a hollow, a vacuum at the core of his message. Because what he was really crying out for was for someone – something – to come and take control. He wanted a government. He wanted a leader to make him feel safe. Because deep down, he knows he is not that man. As a prime minister, he is a fraud. At its most Freudian, this was Sunak’s primal scream for his daddy. Rish! approached the lectern trying to look purposeful. Though mostly just relieved that the rain had momentarily held off and he wasn’t going to get soaked. He began by describing the problem. Extremism was on the rise in the country. On the far left and on the far right. There was an increase in antisemitism. Jewish children afraid to walk to school. And an increase in hatred against Muslims, with women abused in the streets. There were threats to MPs in parliament. And now – the final straw – there was the election of Galloway in Rochdale. Democracy was now under threat. Weirdly, it never seemed to have occurred to Sunak to ask himself why this all might be happening on his watch. Such a lack of intellectual curiosity in a man who prides himself on being clever is breathtaking. Perhaps the denial is too great. Perhaps it needs to be; otherwise he could not get through the day. Let’s do the work for him. Let’s start with Brexit. Because that’s where political discourse in the country started to become more polarised and violent. Where was Rish! when the Daily Mail and the Telegraph called judges and remainer MPs “traitors” and “enemies of the people”? Cheering the newspapers on. That’s where. Where was Rish! when Boris Johnson upended centuries of accepted parliamentary procedure with the illegal prorogation? Cheerfully nodding it through. So forgive us if we don’t take Sunak as a democratic role model. Fast forward a few years. To Rish!’s term in office. Inviting Suella Braverman to be home secretary despite her being found to have broken the ministerial code. Minutes after Sunak promised to govern with “professionalism, integrity and accountability”. Then the prolonged attacks on refugees and minorities. The othering of people who couldn’t defend themselves. Just because he imagined it would go down well with the right wing of the Tory party. He practically introduced a daily 15 minute hate. George Orwell would have been horrified. Then to the present. A former prime minister, Liz Truss, who peddles conspiracy theories about the Bank of England being infiltrated by the deep state. Sunak just smiles indulgently. As he does with Lee Anderson. Rish! may have suspended 30p Lee but the body language indicates that he is still welcome. This from Anderson, who unrepentantly insists that the democratically elected London mayor is colluding with Muslim extremists. That London is in effect under sharia law. They’re the fantasies of a not very bright far-right droid. But Rish! essentially lets it go. Unable to say the I word: Islamophobia. On and on Sunak went about how the UK was close to breaking point. Does it feel that way to you? There was one laugh-out-loud moment when he appealed to those marching for peace not to let their protests be hijacked by extremists. Just a week ago, the prime minister was at a Welsh farmers’ protest that was hijacked by some climate crisis denial extremists. And Rish! was happy to have his photo taken with them. You couldn’t make this stuff up. The longer Sunak went on, the more desperate and the less effectual he sounded. And he was starting with a very low bar. We were basically a nice country, he said. Don’t let it be ruined by extremist idiots. Well, quite. He could start with those close to him. Democracy was increasingly fragile and needed protecting. Yup. Now remind me who elected the current prime minister. Or the one before that. Oh, that’s right. No one. This can’t go on. If Sunak really wants to know why the country feels as if it’s falling apart, it’s because we haven’t got a functioning government. All that he did get right was “enough is enough”. It is. Time for an election. N othing shouts “Don’t panic! Don’t panic” more than a hastily arranged speech from the prime minister outside No 10 at 5.45pm on a Friday. Still, on the plus side, those who chose to carry on watching Pointless on BBC One won’t have missed a thing. It would have been hard to tell the two apart. Rishi Sunak is the politician’s anti-politician. If he ever came close to a real politician, he might dissolve on contact. Just as well there are so few of them in his cabinet. You could almost call it a talent – the unerring ability to do the wrong thing. To strike the wrong tone. To misjudge the situation. Every time you think things couldn’t get any worse, Rish! appears to say: “Hold my Coke.” This was meant to be Sunak at his most impassioned. Bringing the country together at what he thought was a time of crisis. Whether the election of George Galloway , thanks to the stupidity of Labour, really is a crisis is open to question. Clearly it’s a lot less than desirable. But a crisis? Galloway is just one of politics’ natural gobshites. The left’s version of Nigel Farage. A man whose prime cause is himself and who exists in a narcissistic bubble of trouble-making. A little man who gets off on division. Shakespeare’s words “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” could have been written for him. To treat him any more seriously is to indulge him. There was no real argument to Sunak’s speech. Nor was there any real rhetorical power. He is a prime minister unfortunately blessed with levitas. It’s almost impossible to take what he is saying seriously. Least of all in his speech was any policy. Sunak just wanted to spend 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions. Something he might have been better off doing with his therapist. If he hasn’t got one, he should find one urgently. What shone through his words was the absence. There was a hollow, a vacuum at the core of his message. Because what he was really crying out for was for someone – something – to come and take control. He wanted a government. He wanted a leader to make him feel safe. Because deep down, he knows he is not that man. As a prime minister, he is a fraud. At its most Freudian, this was Sunak’s primal scream for his daddy. Rish! approached the lectern trying to look purposeful. Though mostly just relieved that the rain had momentarily held off and he wasn’t going to get soaked. He began by describing the problem. Extremism was on the rise in the country. On the far left and on the far right. There was an increase in antisemitism. Jewish children afraid to walk to school. And an increase in hatred against Muslims, with women abused in the streets. There were threats to MPs in parliament. And now – the final straw – there was the election of Galloway in Rochdale. Democracy was now under threat. Weirdly, it never seemed to have occurred to Sunak to ask himself why this all might be happening on his watch. Such a lack of intellectual curiosity in a man who prides himself on being clever is breathtaking. Perhaps the denial is too great. Perhaps it needs to be; otherwise he could not get through the day. Let’s do the work for him. Let’s start with Brexit. Because that’s where political discourse in the country started to become more polarised and violent. Where was Rish! when the Daily Mail and the Telegraph called judges and remainer MPs “traitors” and “enemies of the people”? Cheering the newspapers on. That’s where. Where was Rish! when Boris Johnson upended centuries of accepted parliamentary procedure with the illegal prorogation? Cheerfully nodding it through. So forgive us if we don’t take Sunak as a democratic role model. Fast forward a few years. To Rish!’s term in office. Inviting Suella Braverman to be home secretary despite her being found to have broken the ministerial code. Minutes after Sunak promised to govern with “professionalism, integrity and accountability”. Then the prolonged attacks on refugees and minorities. The othering of people who couldn’t defend themselves. Just because he imagined it would go down well with the right wing of the Tory party. He practically introduced a daily 15 minute hate. George Orwell would have been horrified. Then to the present. A former prime minister, Liz Truss, who peddles conspiracy theories about the Bank of England being infiltrated by the deep state. Sunak just smiles indulgently. As he does with Lee Anderson. Rish! may have suspended 30p Lee but the body language indicates that he is still welcome. This from Anderson, who unrepentantly insists that the democratically elected London mayor is colluding with Muslim extremists. That London is in effect under sharia law. They’re the fantasies of a not very bright far-right droid. But Rish! essentially lets it go. Unable to say the I word: Islamophobia. On and on Sunak went about how the UK was close to breaking point. Does it feel that way to you? There was one laugh-out-loud moment when he appealed to those marching for peace not to let their protests be hijacked by extremists. Just a week ago, the prime minister was at a Welsh farmers’ protest that was hijacked by some climate crisis denial extremists. And Rish! was happy to have his photo taken with them. You couldn’t make this stuff up. The longer Sunak went on, the more desperate and the less effectual he sounded. And he was starting with a very low bar. We were basically a nice country, he said. Don’t let it be ruined by extremist idiots. Well, quite. He could start with those close to him. Democracy was increasingly fragile and needed protecting. Yup. Now remind me who elected the current prime minister. Or the one before that. Oh, that’s right. No one. This can’t go on. If Sunak really wants to know why the country feels as if it’s falling apart, it’s because we haven’t got a functioning government. All that he did get right was “enough is enough”. It is. Time for an election. N othing shouts “Don’t panic! Don’t panic” more than a hastily arranged speech from the prime minister outside No 10 at 5.45pm on a Friday. Still, on the plus side, those who chose to carry on watching Pointless on BBC One won’t have missed a thing. It would have been hard to tell the two apart. Rishi Sunak is the politician’s anti-politician. If he ever came close to a real politician, he might dissolve on contact. Just as well there are so few of them in his cabinet. You could almost call it a talent – the unerring ability to do the wrong thing. To strike the wrong tone. To misjudge the situation. Every time you think things couldn’t get any worse, Rish! appears to say: “Hold my Coke.” This was meant to be Sunak at his most impassioned. Bringing the country together at what he thought was a time of crisis. Whether the election of George Galloway , thanks to the stupidity of Labour, really is a crisis is open to question. Clearly it’s a lot less than desirable. But a crisis? Galloway is just one of politics’ natural gobshites. The left’s version of Nigel Farage. A man whose prime cause is himself and who exists in a narcissistic bubble of trouble-making. A little man who gets off on division. Shakespeare’s words “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” could have been written for him. To treat him any more seriously is to indulge him. There was no real argument to Sunak’s speech. Nor was there any real rhetorical power. He is a prime minister unfortunately blessed with levitas. It’s almost impossible to take what he is saying seriously. Least of all in his speech was any policy. Sunak just wanted to spend 10 minutes sharing his innermost fears with the nation without offering any solutions. Something he might have been better off doing with his therapist. If he hasn’t got one, he should find one urgently. What shone through his words was the absence. There was a hollow, a vacuum at the core of his message. Because what he was really crying out for was for someone – something – to come and take control. He wanted a government. He wanted a leader to make him feel safe. Because deep down, he knows he is not that man. As a prime minister, he is a fraud. At its most Freudian, this was Sunak’s primal scream for his daddy. Rish! approached the lectern trying to look purposeful. Though mostly just relieved that the rain had momentarily held off and he wasn’t going to get soaked. He began by describing the problem. Extremism was on the rise in the country. On the far left and on the far right. There was an increase in antisemitism. Jewish children afraid to walk to school. And an increase in hatred against Muslims, with women abused in the streets. There were threats to MPs in parliament. And now – the final straw – there was the election of Galloway in Rochdale. Democracy was now under threat. Weirdly, it never seemed to have occurred to Sunak to ask himself why this all might be happening on his watch. Such a lack of intellectual curiosity in a man who prides himself on being clever is breathtaking. Perhaps the denial is too great. Perhaps it needs to be; otherwise he could not get through the day. Let’s do the work for him. Let’s start with Brexit. Because that’s where political discourse in the country started to become more polarised and violent. Where was Ri
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Rochdale byelection confirms dissatisfaction but little else is certain
Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Rochdale byelection confirms dissatisfaction but little else is certain This article is more than 1 year old Lewis Baston Bizarre circumstances behind George Galloway’s sweeping victory make implications for national politics unclear The Rochdale byelection was an extraordinary electoral event. Not only did the combined share of the vote for the Conservatives and Labour drop by 63 percentage points – the worst result for the big two since the wartime byelections of 1941-45 – but the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Reform UK all slipped as well. However, Rochdale’s circumstances were so bizarre that one must be careful when drawing general conclusions about the implications for national electoral politics. The stereotype of Rochdale is that it is a deprived Labour stronghold. Although the town does struggle with social problems, the constituency includes some prosperous suburban and rural areas to the east of the town. Rochdale’s electoral history is varied and volatile. Labour has faced competition from the Lib Dems, who held the seat in 1972-97 and 2005-10. In 2015 the Lib Dem vote plunged and Ukip came second, in 2017 the Conservatives surged to second place, and in 2019 the Tories polled their highest share of the vote since they last won the seat in 1955. While there is usually a loyal Labour vote, the opposition to Labour floats around between Lib Dem, Tory and populist options. The mid-campaign disowning of Azhar Ali freed up the Labour half of the electorate to become just as volatile themselves. George Galloway’s victory was made possible by the demographics of Rochdale. There are only 17 constituencies with a higher proportion of Muslim residents than Rochdale’s 30.5%, two of which – Bethnal Green and Bow and Bradford West – have already had the experience of being represented by Galloway. Galloway’s campaigning has always centred around Muslim concerns; many of the arguments he made in Rochdale were updated versions of those from the Bradford campaign trail in 2012. Labour’s stand on the war in Gaza was potent fuel for protest votes, but the combustible material was always there. Chart The consolation for Labour is that the general election will be different in at least two ways. The conversation will be about who is to form the national government, rather than the issues that surface in a one-off byelection. There is also only one George Galloway. Nobody else has the track record of electoral success, the network of support and the personal celebrity built in non-traditional media with wide reach among youth and minority populations. Labour is vulnerable in a few heavily Muslim constituencies, but will be spared from significant losses by the limited supply of viable Independent or small party challengers. It would be a mistake to read Galloway’s win exclusively in the context of Muslim politics and Gaza. He is canny at playing up traditional workerist and social conservative themes for left-behind white voters; he won the white suburban wards of Bradford West in 2012 and will have polled respectably among Rochdale’s majority of non-Muslim voters. Galloway was a more convincing populist than Reform UK’s Simon Danczuk; he even echoed Trump in his literature, calling to “make Rochdale great again”. The fact that many Muslims are willing to vote for a populist who tells them what they want to hear is not a distinction between Muslims and the rest of the population. The second place for the Independent candidate David Tully, with 21.3% of the vote, was almost as startling as Galloway’s victory. Tully went unnoticed by observers, but his campaign, based largely around local identity, made an impact on voters. Galloway and Tully represent alternative responses to the problems facing towns such as Rochdale. To Tully, the answer is to have an authentic local voice, distant from party politics, speaking for Rochdale in Westminster. The Galloway argument is that one is electing a parliamentarian, and that a noisy and controversial advocate is what Rochdale needs to put it on the map. Galloway is unique in modern politics for having represented four entirely different constituencies – in Glasgow, east London, Bradford and now Rochdale – but it is a distinction he shares with another Labour renegade, Ramsay MacDonald. Labour will probably recover Rochdale in the general election with a fully endorsed candidate and a proper campaign. But the disaffection from politics revealed by this strange election is a warning sign. The turnout of 39.7% was reasonably high for a byelection, higher than in the mainstream party contests at Wellingborough and Kingswood despite the absence of the Labour machine. Rochdale has an acute case of the politics of decline. Successive political projects – New Labour, Brexit, levelling up – have all been seen to fail, as central and local public services and infrastructure deteriorate. As well as Gaza, the electorate worried about health, crime and the decline of Rochdale as a retail centre. If Labour wins the general election, it may not have much time to turn things around before part of its core electorate loses patience. Explore more on these topics Byelections Greater Manchester George Galloway Labour Conservatives analysis Share Reuse this content Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Rochdale byelection confirms dissatisfaction but little else is certain This article is more than 1 year old Lewis Baston Bizarre circumstances behind George Galloway’s sweeping victory make implications for national politics unclear The Rochdale byelection was an extraordinary electoral event. Not only did the combined share of the vote for the Conservatives and Labour drop by 63 percentage points – the worst result for the big two since the wartime byelections of 1941-45 – but the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Reform UK all slipped as well. However, Rochdale’s circumstances were so bizarre that one must be careful when drawing general conclusions about the implications for national electoral politics. The stereotype of Rochdale is that it is a deprived Labour stronghold. Although the town does struggle with social problems, the constituency includes some prosperous suburban and rural areas to the east of the town. Rochdale’s electoral history is varied and volatile. Labour has faced competition from the Lib Dems, who held the seat in 1972-97 and 2005-10. In 2015 the Lib Dem vote plunged and Ukip came second, in 2017 the Conservatives surged to second place, and in 2019 the Tories polled their highest share of the vote since they last won the seat in 1955. While there is usually a loyal Labour vote, the opposition to Labour floats around between Lib Dem, Tory and populist options. The mid-campaign disowning of Azhar Ali freed up the Labour half of the electorate to become just as volatile themselves. George Galloway’s victory was made possible by the demographics of Rochdale. There are only 17 constituencies with a higher proportion of Muslim residents than Rochdale’s 30.5%, two of which – Bethnal Green and Bow and Bradford West – have already had the experience of being represented by Galloway. Galloway’s campaigning has always centred around Muslim concerns; many of the arguments he made in Rochdale were updated versions of those from the Bradford campaign trail in 2012. Labour’s stand on the war in Gaza was potent fuel for protest votes, but the combustible material was always there. Chart The consolation for Labour is that the general election will be different in at least two ways. The conversation will be about who is to form the national government, rather than the issues that surface in a one-off byelection. There is also only one George Galloway. Nobody else has the track record of electoral success, the network of support and the personal celebrity built in non-traditional media with wide reach among youth and minority populations. Labour is vulnerable in a few heavily Muslim constituencies, but will be spared from significant losses by the limited supply of viable Independent or small party challengers. It would be a mistake to read Galloway’s win exclusively in the context of Muslim politics and Gaza. He is canny at playing up traditional workerist and social conservative themes for left-behind white voters; he won the white suburban wards of Bradford West in 2012 and will have polled respectably among Rochdale’s majority of non-Muslim voters. Galloway was a more convincing populist than Reform UK’s Simon Danczuk; he even echoed Trump in his literature, calling to “make Rochdale great again”. The fact that many Muslims are willing to vote for a populist who tells them what they want to hear is not a distinction between Muslims and the rest of the population. The second place for the Independent candidate David Tully, with 21.3% of the vote, was almost as startling as Galloway’s victory. Tully went unnoticed by observers, but his campaign, based largely around local identity, made an impact on voters. Galloway and Tully represent alternative responses to the problems facing towns such as Rochdale. To Tully, the answer is to have an authentic local voice, distant from party politics, speaking for Rochdale in Westminster. The Galloway argument is that one is electing a parliamentarian, and that a noisy and controversial advocate is what Rochdale needs to put it on the map. Galloway is unique in modern politics for having represented four entirely different constituencies – in Glasgow, east London, Bradford and now Rochdale – but it is a distinction he shares with another Labour renegade, Ramsay MacDonald. Labour will probably recover Rochdale in the general election with a fully endorsed candidate and a proper campaign. But the disaffection from politics revealed by this strange election is a warning sign. The turnout of 39.7% was reasonably high for a byelection, higher than in the mainstream party contests at Wellingborough and Kingswood despite the absence of the Labour machine. Rochdale has an acute case of the politics of decline. Successive political projects – New Labour, Brexit, levelling up – have all been seen to fail, as central and local public services and infrastructure deteriorate. As well as Gaza, the electorate worried about health, crime and the decline of Rochdale as a retail centre. If Labour wins the general election, it may not have much time to turn things around before part of its core electorate loses patience. Explore more on these topics Byelections Greater Manchester George Galloway Labour Conservatives analysis Share Reuse this content Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Galloway, who won almost 40% of the vote, has always centred his election campaigns on Muslim concerns. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Rochdale byelection confirms dissatisfaction but little else is certain This article is more than 1 year old Lewis Baston This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Rochdale byelection confirms dissatisfaction but little else is certain This article is more than 1 year old Lewis Baston This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Rochdale byelection confirms dissatisfaction but little else is certain This article is more than 1 year old Lewis Baston This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Bizarre circumstances behind George Galloway’s sweeping victory make implications for national politics unclear Bizarre circumstances behind George Galloway’s sweeping victory make implications for national politics unclear Bizarre circumstances behind George Galloway’s sweeping victory make implications for national politics unclear The Rochdale byelection was an extraordinary electoral event. Not only did the combined share of the vote for the Conservatives and Labour drop by 63 percentage points – the worst result for the big two since the wartime byelections of 1941-45 – but the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Reform UK all slipped as well. However, Rochdale’s circumstances were so bizarre that one must be careful when drawing general conclusions about the implications for national electoral politics. The stereotype of Rochdale is that it is a deprived Labour stronghold. Although the town does struggle with social problems, the constituency includes some prosperous suburban and rural areas to the east of the town. Rochdale’s electoral history is varied and volatile. Labour has faced competition from the Lib Dems, who held the seat in 1972-97 and 2005-10. In 2015 the Lib Dem vote plunged and Ukip came second, in 2017 the Conservatives surged to second place, and in 2019 the Tories polled their highest share of the vote since they last won the seat in 1955. While there is usually a loyal Labour vote, the opposition to Labour floats around between Lib Dem, Tory and populist options. The mid-campaign disowning of Azhar Ali freed up the Labour half of the electorate to become just as volatile themselves. George Galloway’s victory was made possible by the demographics of Rochdale. There are only 17 constituencies with a higher proportion of Muslim residents than Rochdale’s 30.5%, two of which – Bethnal Green and Bow and Bradford West – have already had the experience of being represented by Galloway. Galloway’s campaigning has always centred around Muslim concerns; many of the arguments he made in Rochdale were updated versions of those from the Bradford campaign trail in 2012. Labour’s stand on the war in Gaza was potent fuel for protest votes, but the combustible material was always there. Chart The consolation for Labour is that the general election will be different in at least two ways. The conversation will be about who is to form the national government, rather than the issues that surface in a one-off byelection. There is also only one George Galloway. Nobody else has the track record of electoral success, the network of support and the personal celebrity built in non-traditional media with wide reach among youth and minority populations. Labour is vulnerable in a few heavily Muslim constituencies, but will be spared from significant losses by the limited supply of viable Independent or small party challengers. It would be a mistake to read Galloway’s win exclusively in the context of Muslim politics and Gaza. He is canny at playing up traditional workerist and social conservative themes for left-behind white voters; he won the white suburban wards of Bradford West in 2012 and will have polled respectably among Rochdale’s majority of non-Muslim voters. Galloway was a more convincing populist than Reform UK’s Simon Danczuk; he even echoed Trump in his literature, calling to “make Rochdale great again”. The fact that many Muslims are willing to vote for a populist who tells them what they want to hear is not a distinction between Muslims and the rest of the population. The second place for the Independent candidate David Tully, with 21.3% of the vote, was almost as startling as Galloway’s victory. Tully went unnoticed by observers, but his campaign, based largely around local identity, made an impact on voters. Galloway and Tully represent alternative responses to the problems facing towns such as Rochdale. To Tully, the answer is to have an authentic local voice, distant from party politics, speaking for Rochdale in Westminster. The Galloway argument is that one is electing a parliamentarian, and that a noisy and controversial advocate is what Rochdale needs to put it on the map. Galloway is unique in modern politics for having represented four entirely different constituencies – in Glasgow, east London, Bradford and now Rochdale – but it is a distinction he shares with another Labour renegade, Ramsay MacDonald. Labour will probably recover Rochdale in the general election with a fully endorsed candidate and a proper campaign. But the disaffection from politics revealed by this strange election is a warning sign. The turnout of 39.7% was reasonably high for a byelection, higher than in the mainstream party contests at Wellingborough and Kingswood despite the absence of the Labour machine. Rochdale has an acute case of the politics of decline. Successive political projects – New Labour, Brexit, levelling up – have all been seen to fail, as central and local public services and infrastructure deteriorate. As well as Gaza, the electorate worried about health, crime and the decline of Rochdale as a retail centre. If Labour wins the general election, it may not have much time to turn things around before part of its core electorate loses patience. Explore more on these topics Byelections Greater Manchester George Galloway Labour Conservatives analysis Share Reuse this content The Rochdale byelection was an extraordinary electoral event. Not only did the combined share of the vote for the Conservatives and Labour drop by 63 percentage points – the worst result for the big two since the wartime byelections of 1941-45 – but the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Reform UK all slipped as well. However, Rochdale’s circumstances were so bizarre that one must be careful when drawing general conclusions about the implications for national electoral politics. The stereotype of Rochdale is that it is a deprived Labour stronghold. Although the town does struggle with social problems, the constituency includes some prosperous suburban and rural areas to the east of the town. Rochdale’s electoral history is varied and volatile. Labour has faced competition from the Lib Dems, who held the seat in 1972-97 and 2005-10. In 2015 the Lib Dem vote plunged and Ukip came second, in 2017 the Conservatives surged to second place, and in 2019 the Tories polled their highest share of the vote since they last won the seat in 1955. While there is usually a loyal Labour vote, the opposition to Labour floats around between Lib Dem, Tory and populist options. The mid-campaign disowning of Azhar Ali freed up the Labour half of the electorate to become just as volatile themselves. George Galloway’s victory was made possible by the demographics of Rochdale. There are only 17 constituencies with a higher proportion of Muslim residents than Rochdale’s 30.5%, two of which – Bethnal Green and Bow and Bradford West – have already had the experience of being represented by Galloway. Galloway’s campaigning has always centred around Muslim concerns; many of the arguments he made in Rochdale were updated versions of those from the Bradford campaign trail in 2012. Labour’s stand on the war in Gaza was potent fuel for protest votes, but the combustible material was always there. Chart The consolation for Labour is that the general election will be different in at least two ways. The conversation will be about who is to form the national government, rather than the issues that surface in a one-off byelection. There is also only one George Galloway. Nobody else has the track record of electoral success, the network of support and the personal celebrity built in non-traditional media with wide reach among youth and minority populations. Labour is vulnerable in a few heavily Muslim constituencies, but will be spared from significant losses by the limited supply of viable Independent or small party challengers. It would be a mistake to read Galloway’s win exclusively in the context of Muslim politics and Gaza. He is canny at playing up traditional workerist and social conservative themes for left-behind white voters; he won the white suburban wards of Bradford West in 2012 and will have polled respectably among Rochdale’s majority of non-Muslim voters. Galloway was a more convincing populist than Reform UK’s Simon Danczuk; he even echoed Trump in his literature, calling to “make Rochdale great again”. The fact that many Muslims are willing to vote for a populist who tells them what they want to hear is not a distinction between Muslims and the rest of the population. The second place for the Independent candidate David Tully, with 21.3% of the vote, was almost as startling as Galloway’s victory. Tully went unnoticed by observers, but his campaign, based largely around local identity, made an impact on voters. Galloway and Tully represent alternative responses to the problems facing towns such as Rochdale. To Tully, the answer is to have an authentic local voice, distant from party politics, speaking for Rochdale in Westminster. The Galloway argument is that one is electing a parliamentarian, and that a noisy and controversial advocate is what Rochdale needs to put it on the map. Galloway is unique in modern politics for having represented four entirely different constituencies – in Glasgow, east London, Bradford and now Rochdale – but it is a distinction he shares with another Labour renegade, Ramsay MacDonald. Labour will probably recover Rochdale in the general election with a fully endorsed candidate and a proper campaign. But the disaffection from politics revealed by this strange election is a warning sign. The turnout of 39.7% was reasonably high for a byelection, higher than in the mainstream party contests at Wellingborough and Kingswood despite the absence of the Labour machine. Rochdale has an acute case of the politics of decline. Successive political projects – New Labour, Brexit, levelling up – have all been seen to fail, as central and local public services and infrastructure deteriorate. As well as Gaza, the electorate worried about health, crime and the decline of Rochdale as a retail centre. If Labour wins the general election, it may not have much time to turn things around before part of its core electorate loses patience. Explore more on these topics Byelections Greater Manchester George Galloway Labour Conservatives analysis Share Reuse this content The Rochdale byelection was an extraordinary electoral event. Not only did the combined share of the vote for the Conservatives and Labour drop by 63 percentage points – the worst result for the big two since the wartime byelections of 1941-45 – but the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Reform UK all slipped as well. However, Rochdale’s circumstances were so bizarre that one must be careful when drawing general conclusions about the implications for national electoral politics. The stereotype of Rochdale is that it is a deprived Labour stronghold. Although the town does struggle with social problems, the constituency includes some prosperous suburban and rural areas to the east of the town. Rochdale’s electoral history is varied and volatile. Labour has faced competition from the Lib Dems, who held the seat in 1972-97 and 2005-10. In 2015 the Lib Dem vote plunged and Ukip came second, in 2017 the Conservatives surged to second place, and in 2019 the Tories polled their highest share of the vote since they last won the seat in 1955. While there is usually a loyal Labour vote, the opposition to Labour floats around between Lib Dem, Tory and populist options. The mid-campaign disowning of Azhar Ali freed up the Labour half of the electorate to become just as volatile themselves. George Galloway’s victory was made possible by the demographics of Rochdale. There are only 17 constituencies with a higher proportion of Muslim residents than Rochdale’s 30.5%, two of which – Bethnal Green and Bow and Bradford West – have already had the experience of being represented by Galloway. Galloway’s campaigning has always centred around Muslim concerns; many of the arguments he made in Rochdale were updated versions of those from the Bradford campaign trail in 2012. Labour’s stand on the war in Gaza was potent fuel for protest votes, but the combustible material was always there. Chart The consolation for Labour is that the general election will be different in at least two ways. The conversation will be about who is to form the national government, rather than the issues that surface in a one-off byelection. There is also only one George Galloway. Nobody else has the track record of electoral success, the network of support and the personal celebrity built in non-traditional media with wide reach among youth and minority populations. Labour is vulnerable in a few heavily Muslim constituencies, but will be spared from significant losses by the limited supply of viable Independent or small party challengers. It would be a mistake to read Galloway’s win exclusively in the context of Muslim politics and Gaza. He is canny at playing up traditional workerist and social conservative themes for left-behind white voters; he won the white suburban wards of Bradford West in 2012 and will have polled respectably among Rochdale’s majority of non-Muslim voters. Galloway was a more convincing populist than Reform UK’s Simon Danczuk; he even echoed Trump in his literature, calling to “make Rochdale great again”. The fact that many Muslims are willing to vote for a populist who tells them what they want to hear is not a distinction between Muslims and the rest of the population. The second place for the Independent candidate David Tully, with 21.3% of the vote, was almost as startling as Galloway’s victory. Tully went unnoticed by observers, but his campaign, based largely around local identity, made an impact on voters. Galloway and Tully represent alternative responses to the problems facing towns such as Rochdale. To Tully, the answer is to have an authentic local voice, distant from party politics, speaking for Rochdale in Westminster. The Galloway argument is that one is electing a parliamentarian, and that a noisy and controversial advocate is what Rochdale needs to put it on the map. Galloway is unique in modern politics for having represented four entirely different constituencies – in Glasgow, east London, Bradford and now Rochdale – but it is a distinction he shares with another Labour renegade, Ramsay MacDonald. Labour will probably recover Rochdale in the general election with a fully endorsed candidate and a proper campaign. But the disaffection from politics revealed by this strange election is a warning sign. The turnout of 39.7% was reasonably high for a byelection, higher than in the mainstream party contests at Wellingborough and Kingswood despite the absence of the Labour machine. Rochdale has an acute case of the politics of decline. Successive political projects – New Labour, Brexit, levelling up – have all been seen to fail, as central and local public services and infrastructure deteriorate. As well as Gaza, the electorate worried about health, crime and the decline of Rochdale as a retail centre. If Labour wins the general election, it may not have much time to turn things around before part of its core electorate loses patience. The Rochdale byelection was an extraordinary electoral event. Not only did the combined share of the vote for the Conservatives and Labour drop by 63 percentage points – the worst result for the big two since the wartime byelections of 1941-45 – but the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Reform UK all slipped as well. However, Rochdale’s circumstances were so bizarre that one must be careful when drawing general conclusions about the implications for national electoral politics. The stereotype of Rochdale is that it is a deprived Labour stronghold. Although the town does struggle with social problems, the constituency includes some prosperous suburban and rural areas to the east of the town. Rochdale’s electoral history is varied and volatile. Labour has faced competition from the Lib Dems, who held the seat in 1972-97 and 2005-10. In 2015 the Lib Dem vote plunged and Ukip came second, in 2017 the Conservatives surged to second place, and in 2019 the Tories polled their highest share of the vote since they last won the seat in 1955. While there is usually a loyal Labour vote, the opposition to Labour floats around between Lib Dem, Tory and populist options. The mid-campaign disowning of Azhar Ali freed up the Labour half of the electorate to become just as volatile themselves. George Galloway’s victory was made possible by the demographics of Rochdale. There are only 17 constituencies with a higher proportion of Muslim residents than Rochdale’s 30.5%, two of which – Bethnal Green and Bow and Bradford West – have already had the experience of being represented by Galloway. Galloway’s campaigning has always centred around Muslim concerns; many of the arguments he made in Rochdale were updated versions of those from the Bradford campaign trail in 2012. Labour’s stand on the war in Gaza was potent fuel for protest votes, but the combustible material was always there. Chart The consolation for Labour is that the general election will be different in at least two ways. The conversation will be about who is to form the national government, rather than the issues that surface in a one-off byelection. There is also only one George Galloway. Nobody else has the track record of electoral success, the network of support and the personal celebrity built in non-traditional media with wide reach among youth and minority populations. Labour is vulnerable in a few heavily Muslim constituencies, but will be spared from significant losses by the limited supply of viable Independent or small party challengers. It would be a mistake to read Galloway’s win exclusively in the context of Muslim politics and Gaza. He is canny at playing up traditional workerist and social conservative themes for left-behind white voters; he won the white suburban wards of Bradford West in 2012 and will have polled respectably among Rochdale’s majority of non-Muslim voters. Galloway was a more convincing populist than Reform UK’s Simon Danczuk; he even echoed Trump in his literature, calling to “make Rochdale great again”. The fact that many Muslims are willing to vote for a populist who tells them what they want to hear is not a distinction between Muslims and the rest of the population. The second place for the Independent candidate David Tully, with 21.3% of the vote, was almost as startling as Galloway’s victory. Tully went unnoticed by observers, but his campaign, based largely around local identity, made an impact on voters. Galloway and Tully represent alternative responses to the problems facing towns such as Rochdale. To Tully, the answer is to have an authentic local voice, distant from party politics, speaking for Rochdale in Westminster. The Galloway argument is that one is electing a parliamentarian, and that a noisy and controversial advocate is what Rochdale needs to put it on the map. Galloway is unique in modern politics for having represented four entirely different constituencies – in Glasgow, east London, Bradford and now Rochdale – but it is a distinction he shares with another Labour renegade, Ramsay MacDonald. Labour will probably recover Rochdale in the general election with a fully endorsed candidate and a proper campaign. But the disaffection from politics revealed by this strange election is a warning sign. The turnout of 39.7% was reasonably high for a byelection, higher than in the mainstream party contests at Wellingborough and Kingswood despite the absence of the Labour machine. Rochdale has an acute case of the politics of decline. Successive political projects – New Labour, Brexit, levelling up – have all been seen to fail, as central and local public services and infrastructure deteriorate. As well as Gaza, the electorate worried about health, crime and the decline of Rochdale as a retail centre. If Labour wins the general election, it may not have much time to turn things around before part of its core electorate loses patience. The Rochdale byelection was an extraordinary electoral event. Not only did the combined share of the vote for the Conservatives and Labour drop by 63 percentage points – the worst result for the big two since the wartime byelections of 1941-45 – but the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Reform UK all slipped as well. However, Rochdale’s circumstances were so bizarre that one must be careful when drawing general conclusions about the implications for national electoral politics. The stereotype of Rochdale is that it is a deprived Labour stronghold. Although the town does struggle with social problems, the constituency includes some prosperous suburban and rural areas to the east of the town. Rochdale’s electoral history is varied and volatile. Labour has faced competition from the Lib Dems, who held the seat in 1972-97 and 2005-10. In 2015 the Lib Dem vote plunged and Ukip came second, in 2017 the Conservatives surged to second place, and in 2019 the Tories polled their highest share of the vote since they last won the seat in 1955. While there is usually a loyal Labour vote, the opposition to Labour floats around between Lib Dem, Tory and populist options. The mid-campaign disowning of Azhar Ali freed up the Labour half of the electorate to become just as volatile themselves. George Galloway’s victory was made possible by the demographics of Rochdale. There are only 17 constituencies with a higher proportion of Muslim residents than Rochdale’s 30.5%, two of which – Bethnal Green and Bow and Bradford West – have already had the experience of being represented by Galloway. Galloway’s campaigning has always centred around Muslim concerns; many of the arguments he made in Rochdale were updated versions of those from the Bradford campaign trail in 2012. Labour’s stand on the war in Gaza was potent fuel for protest votes, but the combustible material was always there. The consolation for Labour is that the general election will be different in at least two ways. The conversation will be about who is to form the national government, rather than the issues that surface in a one-off byelection. There is also only one George Galloway. Nobody else has the track record of electoral success, the network of support and the personal celebrity built in non-traditional media with wide reach among youth and minority populations. Labour is vulnerable in a few heavily Muslim constituencies, but will be spared from significant losses by the limited supply of viable Independent or small party challengers. It would be a mistake to read Galloway’s win exclusively in the context of Muslim politics and Gaza. He is canny at playing up traditional workerist and social conservative themes for left-behind white voters; he won the white suburban wards of Bradford West in 2012 and will have polled respectably among Rochdale’s majority of non-Muslim voters. Galloway was a more convincing populist than Reform UK’s Simon Danczuk; he even echoed Trump in his literature, calling to “make Rochdale great again”. The fact that many Muslims are willing to vote for a populist who tells them what they want to hear is not a distinction between Muslims and the rest of the population. The second place for the Independent candidate David Tully, with 21.3% of the vote, was almost as startling as Galloway’s victory. Tully went unnoticed by observers, but his campaign, based largely around local identity, made an impact on voters. Galloway and Tully represent alternative responses to the problems facing towns such as Rochdale. To Tully, the answer is to have an authentic local voice, distant from party politics, speaking for Rochdale in Westminster. The Galloway argument is that one is electing a parliamentarian, and that a noisy and controversial advocate is what Rochdale needs to put it on the map. Galloway is unique in modern politics for having represented four entirely different constituencies – in Glasgow, east London, Bradford and now Rochdale – but it is a distinction he shares with another Labour renegade, Ramsay MacDonald. Labour will probably recover Rochdale in the general election with a fully endorsed candidate and a proper campaign. But the disaffection from politics revealed by this strange election is a warning sign. The turnout of 39.7% was reasonably high for a byelection, higher than in the mainstream party contests at Wellingborough and Kingswood despite the absence of the Labour machine. Rochdale has an acute case of the politics of decline. Successive political projects – New Labour, Brexit, levelling up – have all been seen to fail, as central and local public services and infrastructure deteriorate. As well as Gaza, the electorate worried about health, crime and the decline of Rochdale as a retail centre. If Labour wins the general election, it may not have much time to turn things around before part of its core electorate loses patience. Explore more on these topics Byelections Greater Manchester George Galloway Labour Conservatives analysis Share Reuse this content Byelections Greater Manchester George Galloway Labour Conservatives analysis |
‘Stop insuring fossil fuel’: activists target London insurers in week of action
Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old ‘Stop insuring fossil fuel’: activists target London insurers in week of action This article is more than 1 year old Marches, protests and sabotage attacks as City at forefront of global campaign against industry T raffic petered out on Gracechurch Street, in the heart of London’s financial district, as hundreds marched down the road, in step with samba drummers beating a military tattoo. “Climate activists for a free Palestine,” said the banner that led them. Their target was No 20, an office housing the UK headquarters of Axa insurance group, which, as well as being the world’s sixth biggest underwriter of fossil fuel projects, has been singled out as a facilitator of Israel’s illegal settlements. All week, London has been at the forefront of a global campaign of actions against insurance companies. Activists in nearly 30 countries across five continents have held marches, rallies, protests, community events and sabotage attacks targeting the industry. The aim, according to Ilana Winterstein, a spokesperson for the Insure Our Future campaign, has been to “spotlight the key role the insurance industry plays in the climate crisis – without insurance, fossil fuel projects can’t operate – and to highlight that insurers could be the unlikely heroes the world needs if they act now and stop insuring fossil fuel expansion. View image in fullscreen Workers clean red paint thrown by protesters at 10 St Mary Axe offices in the City of London on Thursday. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock “Major insurers have so far flown mainly under the radar when it comes to public scrutiny of their part in climate breakdown, and this week is designed to raise global awareness and put pressure on execs to take the action needed and introduce clear fossil fuel exclusion policies.” In London, the global centre of the insurance industry, supporters of Extinction Rebellion (XR) and other groups occupied the officers of Tokio Marine, Talbot/AIG, Zurich, Probitas and Travelers, formed a human chain around the Lloyd’s of London insurance market, and lobbied industry employees in pubs and bars in the financial district. Most actions were disruptive but peaceful, with XR counting 14 arrests among its supporters. The exception was a sabotage attack in the early hours of Thursday on the offices of Tokio Marine, AIG and Probitas, where activists armed with paint-filled fire extinguishers stained the doors of the insurers blood red. A new activist group, Shut the System, claimed responsibility for the action after its supporters fled the scene, according to a witness. View image in fullscreen Protesters inside the office of the insurance firm Travelers in the City of London on Tuesday. Photograph: Jonathan Vines/Extinction Rebellion/PA Elsewhere in Europe, there were protests and actions in France, Germany and Switzerland. And in the US, rallies took place in New York City, Houston, San Francisco, Portland and Denver Frontline communities also mobilised, with actions in Uganda and Tanzania, which will be affected by the East African crude oil pipeline (Eacop) , as well as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya in Africa, as well as Bangladesh, the Philippines and Indonesia in south Asia, and Costa Rica, Columbia and Peru in Latin America. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen A protest against insurance companies causing environmental pollution was held in New York on Tuesday. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Paul Parker, the recording clerk of Quakers in Britain, which joined actions in London, said: “Those who offer financial backing and social legitimacy to new fossil fuel projects now have an urgent moral responsibility to change course. This duty extends to all sectors and all parts of society. “The insurance industry has significant influence on the global economy; you can put our whole world on a safer trajectory by showing leadership now.” Winterstein added: “This week has sent an extremely powerful message to the insurance industry that they must introduce exclusion policies on fossil fuels now because later is too late. “We’re seeing the impact already – Probitas has confirmed to campaigners that they will rule out Eacop and [the recently approved] west Cumbria mine , which is a huge success, and Zurich’s CEO has requested a meeting with campaigners. “We’re thrilled that so many different communities and groups from the frontline of the climate crisis have taken action because they realise that the insurance industry is a key strategic lever for change.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Insurance industry Extinction Rebellion London Fossil fuels Israel Climate crisis features Share Reuse this content Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old ‘Stop insuring fossil fuel’: activists target London insurers in week of action This article is more than 1 year old Marches, protests and sabotage attacks as City at forefront of global campaign against industry T raffic petered out on Gracechurch Street, in the heart of London’s financial district, as hundreds marched down the road, in step with samba drummers beating a military tattoo. “Climate activists for a free Palestine,” said the banner that led them. Their target was No 20, an office housing the UK headquarters of Axa insurance group, which, as well as being the world’s sixth biggest underwriter of fossil fuel projects, has been singled out as a facilitator of Israel’s illegal settlements. All week, London has been at the forefront of a global campaign of actions against insurance companies. Activists in nearly 30 countries across five continents have held marches, rallies, protests, community events and sabotage attacks targeting the industry. The aim, according to Ilana Winterstein, a spokesperson for the Insure Our Future campaign, has been to “spotlight the key role the insurance industry plays in the climate crisis – without insurance, fossil fuel projects can’t operate – and to highlight that insurers could be the unlikely heroes the world needs if they act now and stop insuring fossil fuel expansion. View image in fullscreen Workers clean red paint thrown by protesters at 10 St Mary Axe offices in the City of London on Thursday. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock “Major insurers have so far flown mainly under the radar when it comes to public scrutiny of their part in climate breakdown, and this week is designed to raise global awareness and put pressure on execs to take the action needed and introduce clear fossil fuel exclusion policies.” In London, the global centre of the insurance industry, supporters of Extinction Rebellion (XR) and other groups occupied the officers of Tokio Marine, Talbot/AIG, Zurich, Probitas and Travelers, formed a human chain around the Lloyd’s of London insurance market, and lobbied industry employees in pubs and bars in the financial district. Most actions were disruptive but peaceful, with XR counting 14 arrests among its supporters. The exception was a sabotage attack in the early hours of Thursday on the offices of Tokio Marine, AIG and Probitas, where activists armed with paint-filled fire extinguishers stained the doors of the insurers blood red. A new activist group, Shut the System, claimed responsibility for the action after its supporters fled the scene, according to a witness. View image in fullscreen Protesters inside the office of the insurance firm Travelers in the City of London on Tuesday. Photograph: Jonathan Vines/Extinction Rebellion/PA Elsewhere in Europe, there were protests and actions in France, Germany and Switzerland. And in the US, rallies took place in New York City, Houston, San Francisco, Portland and Denver Frontline communities also mobilised, with actions in Uganda and Tanzania, which will be affected by the East African crude oil pipeline (Eacop) , as well as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya in Africa, as well as Bangladesh, the Philippines and Indonesia in south Asia, and Costa Rica, Columbia and Peru in Latin America. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen A protest against insurance companies causing environmental pollution was held in New York on Tuesday. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Paul Parker, the recording clerk of Quakers in Britain, which joined actions in London, said: “Those who offer financial backing and social legitimacy to new fossil fuel projects now have an urgent moral responsibility to change course. This duty extends to all sectors and all parts of society. “The insurance industry has significant influence on the global economy; you can put our whole world on a safer trajectory by showing leadership now.” Winterstein added: “This week has sent an extremely powerful message to the insurance industry that they must introduce exclusion policies on fossil fuels now because later is too late. “We’re seeing the impact already – Probitas has confirmed to campaigners that they will rule out Eacop and [the recently approved] west Cumbria mine , which is a huge success, and Zurich’s CEO has requested a meeting with campaigners. “We’re thrilled that so many different communities and groups from the frontline of the climate crisis have taken action because they realise that the insurance industry is a key strategic lever for change.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Insurance industry Extinction Rebellion London Fossil fuels Israel Climate crisis features Share Reuse this content Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock Protesters link arms outside Lloyds of London on Wednesday. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old ‘Stop insuring fossil fuel’: activists target London insurers in week of action This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Stop insuring fossil fuel’: activists target London insurers in week of action This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Stop insuring fossil fuel’: activists target London insurers in week of action This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Marches, protests and sabotage attacks as City at forefront of global campaign against industry Marches, protests and sabotage attacks as City at forefront of global campaign against industry Marches, protests and sabotage attacks as City at forefront of global campaign against industry T raffic petered out on Gracechurch Street, in the heart of London’s financial district, as hundreds marched down the road, in step with samba drummers beating a military tattoo. “Climate activists for a free Palestine,” said the banner that led them. Their target was No 20, an office housing the UK headquarters of Axa insurance group, which, as well as being the world’s sixth biggest underwriter of fossil fuel projects, has been singled out as a facilitator of Israel’s illegal settlements. All week, London has been at the forefront of a global campaign of actions against insurance companies. Activists in nearly 30 countries across five continents have held marches, rallies, protests, community events and sabotage attacks targeting the industry. The aim, according to Ilana Winterstein, a spokesperson for the Insure Our Future campaign, has been to “spotlight the key role the insurance industry plays in the climate crisis – without insurance, fossil fuel projects can’t operate – and to highlight that insurers could be the unlikely heroes the world needs if they act now and stop insuring fossil fuel expansion. View image in fullscreen Workers clean red paint thrown by protesters at 10 St Mary Axe offices in the City of London on Thursday. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock “Major insurers have so far flown mainly under the radar when it comes to public scrutiny of their part in climate breakdown, and this week is designed to raise global awareness and put pressure on execs to take the action needed and introduce clear fossil fuel exclusion policies.” In London, the global centre of the insurance industry, supporters of Extinction Rebellion (XR) and other groups occupied the officers of Tokio Marine, Talbot/AIG, Zurich, Probitas and Travelers, formed a human chain around the Lloyd’s of London insurance market, and lobbied industry employees in pubs and bars in the financial district. Most actions were disruptive but peaceful, with XR counting 14 arrests among its supporters. The exception was a sabotage attack in the early hours of Thursday on the offices of Tokio Marine, AIG and Probitas, where activists armed with paint-filled fire extinguishers stained the doors of the insurers blood red. A new activist group, Shut the System, claimed responsibility for the action after its supporters fled the scene, according to a witness. View image in fullscreen Protesters inside the office of the insurance firm Travelers in the City of London on Tuesday. Photograph: Jonathan Vines/Extinction Rebellion/PA Elsewhere in Europe, there were protests and actions in France, Germany and Switzerland. And in the US, rallies took place in New York City, Houston, San Francisco, Portland and Denver Frontline communities also mobilised, with actions in Uganda and Tanzania, which will be affected by the East African crude oil pipeline (Eacop) , as well as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya in Africa, as well as Bangladesh, the Philippines and Indonesia in south Asia, and Costa Rica, Columbia and Peru in Latin America. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen A protest against insurance companies causing environmental pollution was held in New York on Tuesday. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Paul Parker, the recording clerk of Quakers in Britain, which joined actions in London, said: “Those who offer financial backing and social legitimacy to new fossil fuel projects now have an urgent moral responsibility to change course. This duty extends to all sectors and all parts of society. “The insurance industry has significant influence on the global economy; you can put our whole world on a safer trajectory by showing leadership now.” Winterstein added: “This week has sent an extremely powerful message to the insurance industry that they must introduce exclusion policies on fossil fuels now because later is too late. “We’re seeing the impact already – Probitas has confirmed to campaigners that they will rule out Eacop and [the recently approved] west Cumbria mine , which is a huge success, and Zurich’s CEO has requested a meeting with campaigners. “We’re thrilled that so many different communities and groups from the frontline of the climate crisis have taken action because they realise that the insurance industry is a key strategic lever for change.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Insurance industry Extinction Rebellion London Fossil fuels Israel Climate crisis features Share Reuse this content T raffic petered out on Gracechurch Street, in the heart of London’s financial district, as hundreds marched down the road, in step with samba drummers beating a military tattoo. “Climate activists for a free Palestine,” said the banner that led them. Their target was No 20, an office housing the UK headquarters of Axa insurance group, which, as well as being the world’s sixth biggest underwriter of fossil fuel projects, has been singled out as a facilitator of Israel’s illegal settlements. All week, London has been at the forefront of a global campaign of actions against insurance companies. Activists in nearly 30 countries across five continents have held marches, rallies, protests, community events and sabotage attacks targeting the industry. The aim, according to Ilana Winterstein, a spokesperson for the Insure Our Future campaign, has been to “spotlight the key role the insurance industry plays in the climate crisis – without insurance, fossil fuel projects can’t operate – and to highlight that insurers could be the unlikely heroes the world needs if they act now and stop insuring fossil fuel expansion. View image in fullscreen Workers clean red paint thrown by protesters at 10 St Mary Axe offices in the City of London on Thursday. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock “Major insurers have so far flown mainly under the radar when it comes to public scrutiny of their part in climate breakdown, and this week is designed to raise global awareness and put pressure on execs to take the action needed and introduce clear fossil fuel exclusion policies.” In London, the global centre of the insurance industry, supporters of Extinction Rebellion (XR) and other groups occupied the officers of Tokio Marine, Talbot/AIG, Zurich, Probitas and Travelers, formed a human chain around the Lloyd’s of London insurance market, and lobbied industry employees in pubs and bars in the financial district. Most actions were disruptive but peaceful, with XR counting 14 arrests among its supporters. The exception was a sabotage attack in the early hours of Thursday on the offices of Tokio Marine, AIG and Probitas, where activists armed with paint-filled fire extinguishers stained the doors of the insurers blood red. A new activist group, Shut the System, claimed responsibility for the action after its supporters fled the scene, according to a witness. View image in fullscreen Protesters inside the office of the insurance firm Travelers in the City of London on Tuesday. Photograph: Jonathan Vines/Extinction Rebellion/PA Elsewhere in Europe, there were protests and actions in France, Germany and Switzerland. And in the US, rallies took place in New York City, Houston, San Francisco, Portland and Denver Frontline communities also mobilised, with actions in Uganda and Tanzania, which will be affected by the East African crude oil pipeline (Eacop) , as well as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya in Africa, as well as Bangladesh, the Philippines and Indonesia in south Asia, and Costa Rica, Columbia and Peru in Latin America. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen A protest against insurance companies causing environmental pollution was held in New York on Tuesday. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Paul Parker, the recording clerk of Quakers in Britain, which joined actions in London, said: “Those who offer financial backing and social legitimacy to new fossil fuel projects now have an urgent moral responsibility to change course. This duty extends to all sectors and all parts of society. “The insurance industry has significant influence on the global economy; you can put our whole world on a safer trajectory by showing leadership now.” Winterstein added: “This week has sent an extremely powerful message to the insurance industry that they must introduce exclusion policies on fossil fuels now because later is too late. “We’re seeing the impact already – Probitas has confirmed to campaigners that they will rule out Eacop and [the recently approved] west Cumbria mine , which is a huge success, and Zurich’s CEO has requested a meeting with campaigners. “We’re thrilled that so many different communities and groups from the frontline of the climate crisis have taken action because they realise that the insurance industry is a key strategic lever for change.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Insurance industry Extinction Rebellion London Fossil fuels Israel Climate crisis features Share Reuse this content T raffic petered out on Gracechurch Street, in the heart of London’s financial district, as hundreds marched down the road, in step with samba drummers beating a military tattoo. “Climate activists for a free Palestine,” said the banner that led them. Their target was No 20, an office housing the UK headquarters of Axa insurance group, which, as well as being the world’s sixth biggest underwriter of fossil fuel projects, has been singled out as a facilitator of Israel’s illegal settlements. All week, London has been at the forefront of a global campaign of actions against insurance companies. Activists in nearly 30 countries across five continents have held marches, rallies, protests, community events and sabotage attacks targeting the industry. The aim, according to Ilana Winterstein, a spokesperson for the Insure Our Future campaign, has been to “spotlight the key role the insurance industry plays in the climate crisis – without insurance, fossil fuel projects can’t operate – and to highlight that insurers could be the unlikely heroes the world needs if they act now and stop insuring fossil fuel expansion. View image in fullscreen Workers clean red paint thrown by protesters at 10 St Mary Axe offices in the City of London on Thursday. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock “Major insurers have so far flown mainly under the radar when it comes to public scrutiny of their part in climate breakdown, and this week is designed to raise global awareness and put pressure on execs to take the action needed and introduce clear fossil fuel exclusion policies.” In London, the global centre of the insurance industry, supporters of Extinction Rebellion (XR) and other groups occupied the officers of Tokio Marine, Talbot/AIG, Zurich, Probitas and Travelers, formed a human chain around the Lloyd’s of London insurance market, and lobbied industry employees in pubs and bars in the financial district. Most actions were disruptive but peaceful, with XR counting 14 arrests among its supporters. The exception was a sabotage attack in the early hours of Thursday on the offices of Tokio Marine, AIG and Probitas, where activists armed with paint-filled fire extinguishers stained the doors of the insurers blood red. A new activist group, Shut the System, claimed responsibility for the action after its supporters fled the scene, according to a witness. View image in fullscreen Protesters inside the office of the insurance firm Travelers in the City of London on Tuesday. Photograph: Jonathan Vines/Extinction Rebellion/PA Elsewhere in Europe, there were protests and actions in France, Germany and Switzerland. And in the US, rallies took place in New York City, Houston, San Francisco, Portland and Denver Frontline communities also mobilised, with actions in Uganda and Tanzania, which will be affected by the East African crude oil pipeline (Eacop) , as well as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya in Africa, as well as Bangladesh, the Philippines and Indonesia in south Asia, and Costa Rica, Columbia and Peru in Latin America. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen A protest against insurance companies causing environmental pollution was held in New York on Tuesday. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Paul Parker, the recording clerk of Quakers in Britain, which joined actions in London, said: “Those who offer financial backing and social legitimacy to new fossil fuel projects now have an urgent moral responsibility to change course. This duty extends to all sectors and all parts of society. “The insurance industry has significant influence on the global economy; you can put our whole world on a safer trajectory by showing leadership now.” Winterstein added: “This week has sent an extremely powerful message to the insurance industry that they must introduce exclusion policies on fossil fuels now because later is too late. “We’re seeing the impact already – Probitas has confirmed to campaigners that they will rule out Eacop and [the recently approved] west Cumbria mine , which is a huge success, and Zurich’s CEO has requested a meeting with campaigners. “We’re thrilled that so many different communities and groups from the frontline of the climate crisis have taken action because they realise that the insurance industry is a key strategic lever for change.” T raffic petered out on Gracechurch Street, in the heart of London’s financial district, as hundreds marched down the road, in step with samba drummers beating a military tattoo. “Climate activists for a free Palestine,” said the banner that led them. Their target was No 20, an office housing the UK headquarters of Axa insurance group, which, as well as being the world’s sixth biggest underwriter of fossil fuel projects, has been singled out as a facilitator of Israel’s illegal settlements. All week, London has been at the forefront of a global campaign of actions against insurance companies. Activists in nearly 30 countries across five continents have held marches, rallies, protests, community events and sabotage attacks targeting the industry. The aim, according to Ilana Winterstein, a spokesperson for the Insure Our Future campaign, has been to “spotlight the key role the insurance industry plays in the climate crisis – without insurance, fossil fuel projects can’t operate – and to highlight that insurers could be the unlikely heroes the world needs if they act now and stop insuring fossil fuel expansion. View image in fullscreen Workers clean red paint thrown by protesters at 10 St Mary Axe offices in the City of London on Thursday. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock “Major insurers have so far flown mainly under the radar when it comes to public scrutiny of their part in climate breakdown, and this week is designed to raise global awareness and put pressure on execs to take the action needed and introduce clear fossil fuel exclusion policies.” In London, the global centre of the insurance industry, supporters of Extinction Rebellion (XR) and other groups occupied the officers of Tokio Marine, Talbot/AIG, Zurich, Probitas and Travelers, formed a human chain around the Lloyd’s of London insurance market, and lobbied industry employees in pubs and bars in the financial district. Most actions were disruptive but peaceful, with XR counting 14 arrests among its supporters. The exception was a sabotage attack in the early hours of Thursday on the offices of Tokio Marine, AIG and Probitas, where activists armed with paint-filled fire extinguishers stained the doors of the insurers blood red. A new activist group, Shut the System, claimed responsibility for the action after its supporters fled the scene, according to a witness. View image in fullscreen Protesters inside the office of the insurance firm Travelers in the City of London on Tuesday. Photograph: Jonathan Vines/Extinction Rebellion/PA Elsewhere in Europe, there were protests and actions in France, Germany and Switzerland. And in the US, rallies took place in New York City, Houston, San Francisco, Portland and Denver Frontline communities also mobilised, with actions in Uganda and Tanzania, which will be affected by the East African crude oil pipeline (Eacop) , as well as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya in Africa, as well as Bangladesh, the Philippines and Indonesia in south Asia, and Costa Rica, Columbia and Peru in Latin America. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen A protest against insurance companies causing environmental pollution was held in New York on Tuesday. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images Paul Parker, the recording clerk of Quakers in Britain, which joined actions in London, said: “Those who offer financial backing and social legitimacy to new fossil fuel projects now have an urgent moral responsibility to change course. This duty extends to all sectors and all parts of society. “The insurance industry has significant influence on the global economy; you can put our whole world on a safer trajectory by showing leadership now.” Winterstein added: “This week has sent an extremely powerful message to the insurance industry that they must introduce exclusion policies on fossil fuels now because later is too late. “We’re seeing the impact already – Probitas has confirmed to campaigners that they will rule out Eacop and [the recently approved] west Cumbria mine , which is a huge success, and Zurich’s CEO has requested a meeting with campaigners. “We’re thrilled that so many different communities and groups from the frontline of the climate crisis have taken action because they realise that the insurance industry is a key strategic lever for change.” T raffic petered out on Gracechurch Street, in the heart of London’s financial district, as hundreds marched down the road, in step with samba drummers beating a military tattoo. “Climate activists for a free Palestine,” said the banner that led them. Their target was No 20, an office housing the UK headquarters of Axa insurance group, which, as well as being the world’s sixth biggest underwriter of fossil fuel projects, has been singled out as a facilitator of Israel’s illegal settlements. All week, London has been at the forefront of a global campaign of actions against insurance companies. Activists in nearly 30 countries across five continents have held marches, rallies, protests, community events and sabotage attacks targeting the industry. The aim, according to Ilana Winterstein, a spokesperson for the Insure Our Future campaign, has been to “spotlight the key role the insurance industry plays in the climate crisis – without insurance, fossil fuel projects can’t operate – and to highlight that insurers could be the unlikely heroes the world needs if they act now and stop insuring fossil fuel expansion. “Major insurers have so far flown mainly under the radar when it comes to public scrutiny of their part in climate breakdown, and this week is designed to raise global awareness and put pressure on execs to take the action needed and introduce clear fossil fuel exclusion policies.” In London, the global centre of the insurance industry, supporters of Extinction Rebellion (XR) and other groups occupied the officers of Tokio Marine, Talbot/AIG, Zurich, Probitas and Travelers, formed a human chain around the Lloyd’s of London insurance market, and lobbied industry employees in pubs and bars in the financial district. Most actions were disruptive but peaceful, with XR counting 14 arrests among its supporters. The exception was a sabotage attack in the early hours of Thursday on the offices of Tokio Marine, AIG and Probitas, where activists armed with paint-filled fire extinguishers stained the doors of the insurers blood red. A new activist group, Shut the System, claimed responsibility for the action after its supporters fled the scene, according to a witness. Elsewhere in Europe, there were protests and actions in France, Germany and Switzerland. And in the US, rallies took place in New York City, Houston, San Francisco, Portland and Denver Frontline communities also mobilised, with actions in Uganda and Tanzania, which will be affected by the East African crude oil pipeline (Eacop) , as well as Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya in Africa, as well as Bangladesh, the Philippines and Indonesia in south Asia, and Costa Rica, Columbia and Peru in Latin America. Paul Parker, the recording clerk of Quakers in Britain, which joined actions in London, said: “Those who offer financial backing and social legitimacy to new fossil fuel projects now have an urgent moral responsibility to change course. This duty extends to all sectors and all parts of society. “The insurance industry has significant influence on the global economy; you can put our whole world on a safer trajectory by showing leadership now.” Winterstein added: “This week has sent an extremely powerful message to the insurance industry that they must introduce exclusion policies on fossil fuels now because later is too late. “We’re seeing the impact already – Probitas has confirmed to campaigners that they will rule out Eacop and [the recently approved] west Cumbria mine , which is a huge success, and Zurich’s CEO has requested a meeting with campaigners. “We’re thrilled that so many different communities and groups from the frontline of the climate crisis have taken action because they realise that the insurance industry is a key strategic lever for change.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Insurance industry Extinction Rebellion London Fossil fuels Israel Climate crisis features Share Reuse this content Environmental activism Insurance industry Extinction Rebellion London Fossil fuels Israel Climate crisis features |
‘They don’t represent us’: Rochdale voters on why they deserted major parties
A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old ‘They don’t represent us’: Rochdale voters on why they deserted major parties This article is more than 1 year old Voters express dissatisfaction with the Labour party and other groups as insurgent George Galloway wins byelection I n the freezing dark outside Rochdale leisure centre, Hassan Ali, 26, celebrated George Galloway’s stunning victory hours before the result was officially declared. “We have created history tonight,” he said in the small hours of Friday, surrounded by dozens of young men, slapping each other on the back and video-calling friends in English, Urdu and Bengali. “Our families have voted for Labour for many years because they’ve got used to ticking the flower box, but this is a vote for change,” said Ali, a community worker. Around him, several men in their 20s said they had voted for the first time on Thursday in order to send Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. “Labour have been running these streets for years and they’ve done nothing,” Ali said. “Starmer has betrayed the people of Rochdale and the Asian vote.” Galloway, the irrepressible agitator, is back in the Commons representing a fourth constituency in nearly four decades after urging voters to deliver “the ultimate protest” over Labour’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict . The scale of his victory, winning a near-6,000 vote majority, was the final surprise in a byelection beset by chaos, controversy and allegations of dirty tricks. View image in fullscreen George Galloway delivers his victory speech after winning the Rochdale byelection by a near-6,000 vote majority. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Police officers guarded polling stations in parts of the Greater Manchester town in a way not seen in a British election in decades, while security was tight at the overnight count. Two days earlier a man was arrested for sending a death threat to Rochdale’s former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, who was contesting the seat for the anti-immigration Reform UK, which hired security guards and moved some of its staff out of a shared property over fears for their safety. Nigel Farage’s party, which came sixth with a dismal 6% of the vote, lodged a formal complaint about Galloway’s team distributing leaflets outside polling venues on Thursday. The complaint to Rochdale’s returning officer, which has been seen by the Guardian, accuses Galloway’s activists of “breaking the rules with impunity” – an accusation they would deny. Galloway’s team, meanwhile, claimed Labour had tried to solicit votes inside a polling station and said its banners had been torn down all over Rochdale. Observers will seek to draw wider lessons from Galloway’s striking victory, yet this was a contest virtually unprecedented in modern times. Labour, who had held the seat with a near-10,000 vote majority, abandoned its campaign after it emerged that its candidate had shared inflammatory conspiracy theories about Israel . But Labour would be wrong to dismiss the result as an aberration. “I think this is a historic shift away from Labour,” said Wafa Hameed Salik, 43, before prayers outside Rochdale’s Bilal mosque on Friday. 0:32 'I apologise to voters in Rochdale,' Starmer says after Galloway wins byelection – video The Labour party runs through Salik’s blood: his dad was a respected party figure locally – a road was named after him – and his uncle was until recently the Labour mayor of Rochdale. But he voted for Galloway having lost hope in Starmer’s party. “Labour always thought ‘oh, we have our voters and whatever’ but this is changing,” he said. Galloway’s campaign, he said, was “like an explosion”. The 69-year-old ex-Labour MP, unseating his former party for the third time in another campaign fought largely on the Middle East, used a speech outside the Bilal mosque to ask Muslims how they would answer “on judgment day” when they were asked: “What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?” Seen by some as cynical, divisive and manipulative, Galloway doubled down, describing the byelection in one of Britain’s poorest towns as “a referendum on Gaza”. Outside Rochdale’s mainly-Muslim areas, he sought to show he cared about local issues, delivering leaflets mentioning potholes and Primark – he promised to bring the shop to the town’s shopping centre – written on literature in the colours of the Palestinian flag. Khalid Javed, 64, who voted for Galloway in this election, said voters like him in Rochdale wanted to express their lack of trust in the political system. “We wanted to mess everything up,” he said. “We want to show that there’s no support for the major parties. We don’t want to listen, I despise these people. They don’t represent us.” View image in fullscreen George Galloway’s election leaflets in the colours of the Palestinian flag. During campaigning he described the byelection as ‘a referendum on Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This dissatisfaction with the main parties is not exclusive to the Muslim community, however. David Tully, a local businessman and a political newcomer, finished second in the byelection with an extraordinary 21% of the vote. This meant three-fifths of the votes went to the insurgents, Galloway and Tully, more than double the number shared between the three main parties, although Labour’s campaign was cut short. How this byelection result is reflected at the general election may be largely down to Labour. If the party can mend relations with the Muslim voters who flocked en masse to Galloway, then they will probably retake Rochdale within months. If not, the party could be out in the cold in the town for years . Back outside Bilal mosque, another worshipper – who did not want to give his full name – said he liked and respected Galloway but did not vote for him because the MP’s speeches, however powerful, were “not going to make a difference”. “What is he really gonna do? The whole world can’t do anything [to stop the conflict],” Mr Arfan, 34, said. Having previously voted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, on Thursday he stayed at home: “I’ve got no faith in none of them. They’re useless.” Explore more on these topics Byelections George Galloway Local politics Greater Manchester North of England Israel-Gaza war Labour features Share Reuse this content A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old ‘They don’t represent us’: Rochdale voters on why they deserted major parties This article is more than 1 year old Voters express dissatisfaction with the Labour party and other groups as insurgent George Galloway wins byelection I n the freezing dark outside Rochdale leisure centre, Hassan Ali, 26, celebrated George Galloway’s stunning victory hours before the result was officially declared. “We have created history tonight,” he said in the small hours of Friday, surrounded by dozens of young men, slapping each other on the back and video-calling friends in English, Urdu and Bengali. “Our families have voted for Labour for many years because they’ve got used to ticking the flower box, but this is a vote for change,” said Ali, a community worker. Around him, several men in their 20s said they had voted for the first time on Thursday in order to send Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. “Labour have been running these streets for years and they’ve done nothing,” Ali said. “Starmer has betrayed the people of Rochdale and the Asian vote.” Galloway, the irrepressible agitator, is back in the Commons representing a fourth constituency in nearly four decades after urging voters to deliver “the ultimate protest” over Labour’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict . The scale of his victory, winning a near-6,000 vote majority, was the final surprise in a byelection beset by chaos, controversy and allegations of dirty tricks. View image in fullscreen George Galloway delivers his victory speech after winning the Rochdale byelection by a near-6,000 vote majority. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Police officers guarded polling stations in parts of the Greater Manchester town in a way not seen in a British election in decades, while security was tight at the overnight count. Two days earlier a man was arrested for sending a death threat to Rochdale’s former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, who was contesting the seat for the anti-immigration Reform UK, which hired security guards and moved some of its staff out of a shared property over fears for their safety. Nigel Farage’s party, which came sixth with a dismal 6% of the vote, lodged a formal complaint about Galloway’s team distributing leaflets outside polling venues on Thursday. The complaint to Rochdale’s returning officer, which has been seen by the Guardian, accuses Galloway’s activists of “breaking the rules with impunity” – an accusation they would deny. Galloway’s team, meanwhile, claimed Labour had tried to solicit votes inside a polling station and said its banners had been torn down all over Rochdale. Observers will seek to draw wider lessons from Galloway’s striking victory, yet this was a contest virtually unprecedented in modern times. Labour, who had held the seat with a near-10,000 vote majority, abandoned its campaign after it emerged that its candidate had shared inflammatory conspiracy theories about Israel . But Labour would be wrong to dismiss the result as an aberration. “I think this is a historic shift away from Labour,” said Wafa Hameed Salik, 43, before prayers outside Rochdale’s Bilal mosque on Friday. 0:32 'I apologise to voters in Rochdale,' Starmer says after Galloway wins byelection – video The Labour party runs through Salik’s blood: his dad was a respected party figure locally – a road was named after him – and his uncle was until recently the Labour mayor of Rochdale. But he voted for Galloway having lost hope in Starmer’s party. “Labour always thought ‘oh, we have our voters and whatever’ but this is changing,” he said. Galloway’s campaign, he said, was “like an explosion”. The 69-year-old ex-Labour MP, unseating his former party for the third time in another campaign fought largely on the Middle East, used a speech outside the Bilal mosque to ask Muslims how they would answer “on judgment day” when they were asked: “What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?” Seen by some as cynical, divisive and manipulative, Galloway doubled down, describing the byelection in one of Britain’s poorest towns as “a referendum on Gaza”. Outside Rochdale’s mainly-Muslim areas, he sought to show he cared about local issues, delivering leaflets mentioning potholes and Primark – he promised to bring the shop to the town’s shopping centre – written on literature in the colours of the Palestinian flag. Khalid Javed, 64, who voted for Galloway in this election, said voters like him in Rochdale wanted to express their lack of trust in the political system. “We wanted to mess everything up,” he said. “We want to show that there’s no support for the major parties. We don’t want to listen, I despise these people. They don’t represent us.” View image in fullscreen George Galloway’s election leaflets in the colours of the Palestinian flag. During campaigning he described the byelection as ‘a referendum on Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This dissatisfaction with the main parties is not exclusive to the Muslim community, however. David Tully, a local businessman and a political newcomer, finished second in the byelection with an extraordinary 21% of the vote. This meant three-fifths of the votes went to the insurgents, Galloway and Tully, more than double the number shared between the three main parties, although Labour’s campaign was cut short. How this byelection result is reflected at the general election may be largely down to Labour. If the party can mend relations with the Muslim voters who flocked en masse to Galloway, then they will probably retake Rochdale within months. If not, the party could be out in the cold in the town for years . Back outside Bilal mosque, another worshipper – who did not want to give his full name – said he liked and respected Galloway but did not vote for him because the MP’s speeches, however powerful, were “not going to make a difference”. “What is he really gonna do? The whole world can’t do anything [to stop the conflict],” Mr Arfan, 34, said. Having previously voted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, on Thursday he stayed at home: “I’ve got no faith in none of them. They’re useless.” Explore more on these topics Byelections George Galloway Local politics Greater Manchester North of England Israel-Gaza war Labour features Share Reuse this content A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters View image in fullscreen A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters A mural with the word 'Rochdale' is seen on the side of a former mill in Rochdale. Some voters said they had voted for the first time to send George Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old ‘They don’t represent us’: Rochdale voters on why they deserted major parties This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘They don’t represent us’: Rochdale voters on why they deserted major parties This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘They don’t represent us’: Rochdale voters on why they deserted major parties This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Voters express dissatisfaction with the Labour party and other groups as insurgent George Galloway wins byelection Voters express dissatisfaction with the Labour party and other groups as insurgent George Galloway wins byelection Voters express dissatisfaction with the Labour party and other groups as insurgent George Galloway wins byelection I n the freezing dark outside Rochdale leisure centre, Hassan Ali, 26, celebrated George Galloway’s stunning victory hours before the result was officially declared. “We have created history tonight,” he said in the small hours of Friday, surrounded by dozens of young men, slapping each other on the back and video-calling friends in English, Urdu and Bengali. “Our families have voted for Labour for many years because they’ve got used to ticking the flower box, but this is a vote for change,” said Ali, a community worker. Around him, several men in their 20s said they had voted for the first time on Thursday in order to send Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. “Labour have been running these streets for years and they’ve done nothing,” Ali said. “Starmer has betrayed the people of Rochdale and the Asian vote.” Galloway, the irrepressible agitator, is back in the Commons representing a fourth constituency in nearly four decades after urging voters to deliver “the ultimate protest” over Labour’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict . The scale of his victory, winning a near-6,000 vote majority, was the final surprise in a byelection beset by chaos, controversy and allegations of dirty tricks. View image in fullscreen George Galloway delivers his victory speech after winning the Rochdale byelection by a near-6,000 vote majority. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Police officers guarded polling stations in parts of the Greater Manchester town in a way not seen in a British election in decades, while security was tight at the overnight count. Two days earlier a man was arrested for sending a death threat to Rochdale’s former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, who was contesting the seat for the anti-immigration Reform UK, which hired security guards and moved some of its staff out of a shared property over fears for their safety. Nigel Farage’s party, which came sixth with a dismal 6% of the vote, lodged a formal complaint about Galloway’s team distributing leaflets outside polling venues on Thursday. The complaint to Rochdale’s returning officer, which has been seen by the Guardian, accuses Galloway’s activists of “breaking the rules with impunity” – an accusation they would deny. Galloway’s team, meanwhile, claimed Labour had tried to solicit votes inside a polling station and said its banners had been torn down all over Rochdale. Observers will seek to draw wider lessons from Galloway’s striking victory, yet this was a contest virtually unprecedented in modern times. Labour, who had held the seat with a near-10,000 vote majority, abandoned its campaign after it emerged that its candidate had shared inflammatory conspiracy theories about Israel . But Labour would be wrong to dismiss the result as an aberration. “I think this is a historic shift away from Labour,” said Wafa Hameed Salik, 43, before prayers outside Rochdale’s Bilal mosque on Friday. 0:32 'I apologise to voters in Rochdale,' Starmer says after Galloway wins byelection – video The Labour party runs through Salik’s blood: his dad was a respected party figure locally – a road was named after him – and his uncle was until recently the Labour mayor of Rochdale. But he voted for Galloway having lost hope in Starmer’s party. “Labour always thought ‘oh, we have our voters and whatever’ but this is changing,” he said. Galloway’s campaign, he said, was “like an explosion”. The 69-year-old ex-Labour MP, unseating his former party for the third time in another campaign fought largely on the Middle East, used a speech outside the Bilal mosque to ask Muslims how they would answer “on judgment day” when they were asked: “What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?” Seen by some as cynical, divisive and manipulative, Galloway doubled down, describing the byelection in one of Britain’s poorest towns as “a referendum on Gaza”. Outside Rochdale’s mainly-Muslim areas, he sought to show he cared about local issues, delivering leaflets mentioning potholes and Primark – he promised to bring the shop to the town’s shopping centre – written on literature in the colours of the Palestinian flag. Khalid Javed, 64, who voted for Galloway in this election, said voters like him in Rochdale wanted to express their lack of trust in the political system. “We wanted to mess everything up,” he said. “We want to show that there’s no support for the major parties. We don’t want to listen, I despise these people. They don’t represent us.” View image in fullscreen George Galloway’s election leaflets in the colours of the Palestinian flag. During campaigning he described the byelection as ‘a referendum on Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This dissatisfaction with the main parties is not exclusive to the Muslim community, however. David Tully, a local businessman and a political newcomer, finished second in the byelection with an extraordinary 21% of the vote. This meant three-fifths of the votes went to the insurgents, Galloway and Tully, more than double the number shared between the three main parties, although Labour’s campaign was cut short. How this byelection result is reflected at the general election may be largely down to Labour. If the party can mend relations with the Muslim voters who flocked en masse to Galloway, then they will probably retake Rochdale within months. If not, the party could be out in the cold in the town for years . Back outside Bilal mosque, another worshipper – who did not want to give his full name – said he liked and respected Galloway but did not vote for him because the MP’s speeches, however powerful, were “not going to make a difference”. “What is he really gonna do? The whole world can’t do anything [to stop the conflict],” Mr Arfan, 34, said. Having previously voted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, on Thursday he stayed at home: “I’ve got no faith in none of them. They’re useless.” Explore more on these topics Byelections George Galloway Local politics Greater Manchester North of England Israel-Gaza war Labour features Share Reuse this content I n the freezing dark outside Rochdale leisure centre, Hassan Ali, 26, celebrated George Galloway’s stunning victory hours before the result was officially declared. “We have created history tonight,” he said in the small hours of Friday, surrounded by dozens of young men, slapping each other on the back and video-calling friends in English, Urdu and Bengali. “Our families have voted for Labour for many years because they’ve got used to ticking the flower box, but this is a vote for change,” said Ali, a community worker. Around him, several men in their 20s said they had voted for the first time on Thursday in order to send Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. “Labour have been running these streets for years and they’ve done nothing,” Ali said. “Starmer has betrayed the people of Rochdale and the Asian vote.” Galloway, the irrepressible agitator, is back in the Commons representing a fourth constituency in nearly four decades after urging voters to deliver “the ultimate protest” over Labour’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict . The scale of his victory, winning a near-6,000 vote majority, was the final surprise in a byelection beset by chaos, controversy and allegations of dirty tricks. View image in fullscreen George Galloway delivers his victory speech after winning the Rochdale byelection by a near-6,000 vote majority. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Police officers guarded polling stations in parts of the Greater Manchester town in a way not seen in a British election in decades, while security was tight at the overnight count. Two days earlier a man was arrested for sending a death threat to Rochdale’s former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, who was contesting the seat for the anti-immigration Reform UK, which hired security guards and moved some of its staff out of a shared property over fears for their safety. Nigel Farage’s party, which came sixth with a dismal 6% of the vote, lodged a formal complaint about Galloway’s team distributing leaflets outside polling venues on Thursday. The complaint to Rochdale’s returning officer, which has been seen by the Guardian, accuses Galloway’s activists of “breaking the rules with impunity” – an accusation they would deny. Galloway’s team, meanwhile, claimed Labour had tried to solicit votes inside a polling station and said its banners had been torn down all over Rochdale. Observers will seek to draw wider lessons from Galloway’s striking victory, yet this was a contest virtually unprecedented in modern times. Labour, who had held the seat with a near-10,000 vote majority, abandoned its campaign after it emerged that its candidate had shared inflammatory conspiracy theories about Israel . But Labour would be wrong to dismiss the result as an aberration. “I think this is a historic shift away from Labour,” said Wafa Hameed Salik, 43, before prayers outside Rochdale’s Bilal mosque on Friday. 0:32 'I apologise to voters in Rochdale,' Starmer says after Galloway wins byelection – video The Labour party runs through Salik’s blood: his dad was a respected party figure locally – a road was named after him – and his uncle was until recently the Labour mayor of Rochdale. But he voted for Galloway having lost hope in Starmer’s party. “Labour always thought ‘oh, we have our voters and whatever’ but this is changing,” he said. Galloway’s campaign, he said, was “like an explosion”. The 69-year-old ex-Labour MP, unseating his former party for the third time in another campaign fought largely on the Middle East, used a speech outside the Bilal mosque to ask Muslims how they would answer “on judgment day” when they were asked: “What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?” Seen by some as cynical, divisive and manipulative, Galloway doubled down, describing the byelection in one of Britain’s poorest towns as “a referendum on Gaza”. Outside Rochdale’s mainly-Muslim areas, he sought to show he cared about local issues, delivering leaflets mentioning potholes and Primark – he promised to bring the shop to the town’s shopping centre – written on literature in the colours of the Palestinian flag. Khalid Javed, 64, who voted for Galloway in this election, said voters like him in Rochdale wanted to express their lack of trust in the political system. “We wanted to mess everything up,” he said. “We want to show that there’s no support for the major parties. We don’t want to listen, I despise these people. They don’t represent us.” View image in fullscreen George Galloway’s election leaflets in the colours of the Palestinian flag. During campaigning he described the byelection as ‘a referendum on Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This dissatisfaction with the main parties is not exclusive to the Muslim community, however. David Tully, a local businessman and a political newcomer, finished second in the byelection with an extraordinary 21% of the vote. This meant three-fifths of the votes went to the insurgents, Galloway and Tully, more than double the number shared between the three main parties, although Labour’s campaign was cut short. How this byelection result is reflected at the general election may be largely down to Labour. If the party can mend relations with the Muslim voters who flocked en masse to Galloway, then they will probably retake Rochdale within months. If not, the party could be out in the cold in the town for years . Back outside Bilal mosque, another worshipper – who did not want to give his full name – said he liked and respected Galloway but did not vote for him because the MP’s speeches, however powerful, were “not going to make a difference”. “What is he really gonna do? The whole world can’t do anything [to stop the conflict],” Mr Arfan, 34, said. Having previously voted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, on Thursday he stayed at home: “I’ve got no faith in none of them. They’re useless.” Explore more on these topics Byelections George Galloway Local politics Greater Manchester North of England Israel-Gaza war Labour features Share Reuse this content I n the freezing dark outside Rochdale leisure centre, Hassan Ali, 26, celebrated George Galloway’s stunning victory hours before the result was officially declared. “We have created history tonight,” he said in the small hours of Friday, surrounded by dozens of young men, slapping each other on the back and video-calling friends in English, Urdu and Bengali. “Our families have voted for Labour for many years because they’ve got used to ticking the flower box, but this is a vote for change,” said Ali, a community worker. Around him, several men in their 20s said they had voted for the first time on Thursday in order to send Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. “Labour have been running these streets for years and they’ve done nothing,” Ali said. “Starmer has betrayed the people of Rochdale and the Asian vote.” Galloway, the irrepressible agitator, is back in the Commons representing a fourth constituency in nearly four decades after urging voters to deliver “the ultimate protest” over Labour’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict . The scale of his victory, winning a near-6,000 vote majority, was the final surprise in a byelection beset by chaos, controversy and allegations of dirty tricks. View image in fullscreen George Galloway delivers his victory speech after winning the Rochdale byelection by a near-6,000 vote majority. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Police officers guarded polling stations in parts of the Greater Manchester town in a way not seen in a British election in decades, while security was tight at the overnight count. Two days earlier a man was arrested for sending a death threat to Rochdale’s former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, who was contesting the seat for the anti-immigration Reform UK, which hired security guards and moved some of its staff out of a shared property over fears for their safety. Nigel Farage’s party, which came sixth with a dismal 6% of the vote, lodged a formal complaint about Galloway’s team distributing leaflets outside polling venues on Thursday. The complaint to Rochdale’s returning officer, which has been seen by the Guardian, accuses Galloway’s activists of “breaking the rules with impunity” – an accusation they would deny. Galloway’s team, meanwhile, claimed Labour had tried to solicit votes inside a polling station and said its banners had been torn down all over Rochdale. Observers will seek to draw wider lessons from Galloway’s striking victory, yet this was a contest virtually unprecedented in modern times. Labour, who had held the seat with a near-10,000 vote majority, abandoned its campaign after it emerged that its candidate had shared inflammatory conspiracy theories about Israel . But Labour would be wrong to dismiss the result as an aberration. “I think this is a historic shift away from Labour,” said Wafa Hameed Salik, 43, before prayers outside Rochdale’s Bilal mosque on Friday. 0:32 'I apologise to voters in Rochdale,' Starmer says after Galloway wins byelection – video The Labour party runs through Salik’s blood: his dad was a respected party figure locally – a road was named after him – and his uncle was until recently the Labour mayor of Rochdale. But he voted for Galloway having lost hope in Starmer’s party. “Labour always thought ‘oh, we have our voters and whatever’ but this is changing,” he said. Galloway’s campaign, he said, was “like an explosion”. The 69-year-old ex-Labour MP, unseating his former party for the third time in another campaign fought largely on the Middle East, used a speech outside the Bilal mosque to ask Muslims how they would answer “on judgment day” when they were asked: “What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?” Seen by some as cynical, divisive and manipulative, Galloway doubled down, describing the byelection in one of Britain’s poorest towns as “a referendum on Gaza”. Outside Rochdale’s mainly-Muslim areas, he sought to show he cared about local issues, delivering leaflets mentioning potholes and Primark – he promised to bring the shop to the town’s shopping centre – written on literature in the colours of the Palestinian flag. Khalid Javed, 64, who voted for Galloway in this election, said voters like him in Rochdale wanted to express their lack of trust in the political system. “We wanted to mess everything up,” he said. “We want to show that there’s no support for the major parties. We don’t want to listen, I despise these people. They don’t represent us.” View image in fullscreen George Galloway’s election leaflets in the colours of the Palestinian flag. During campaigning he described the byelection as ‘a referendum on Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This dissatisfaction with the main parties is not exclusive to the Muslim community, however. David Tully, a local businessman and a political newcomer, finished second in the byelection with an extraordinary 21% of the vote. This meant three-fifths of the votes went to the insurgents, Galloway and Tully, more than double the number shared between the three main parties, although Labour’s campaign was cut short. How this byelection result is reflected at the general election may be largely down to Labour. If the party can mend relations with the Muslim voters who flocked en masse to Galloway, then they will probably retake Rochdale within months. If not, the party could be out in the cold in the town for years . Back outside Bilal mosque, another worshipper – who did not want to give his full name – said he liked and respected Galloway but did not vote for him because the MP’s speeches, however powerful, were “not going to make a difference”. “What is he really gonna do? The whole world can’t do anything [to stop the conflict],” Mr Arfan, 34, said. Having previously voted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, on Thursday he stayed at home: “I’ve got no faith in none of them. They’re useless.” I n the freezing dark outside Rochdale leisure centre, Hassan Ali, 26, celebrated George Galloway’s stunning victory hours before the result was officially declared. “We have created history tonight,” he said in the small hours of Friday, surrounded by dozens of young men, slapping each other on the back and video-calling friends in English, Urdu and Bengali. “Our families have voted for Labour for many years because they’ve got used to ticking the flower box, but this is a vote for change,” said Ali, a community worker. Around him, several men in their 20s said they had voted for the first time on Thursday in order to send Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. “Labour have been running these streets for years and they’ve done nothing,” Ali said. “Starmer has betrayed the people of Rochdale and the Asian vote.” Galloway, the irrepressible agitator, is back in the Commons representing a fourth constituency in nearly four decades after urging voters to deliver “the ultimate protest” over Labour’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict . The scale of his victory, winning a near-6,000 vote majority, was the final surprise in a byelection beset by chaos, controversy and allegations of dirty tricks. View image in fullscreen George Galloway delivers his victory speech after winning the Rochdale byelection by a near-6,000 vote majority. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters Police officers guarded polling stations in parts of the Greater Manchester town in a way not seen in a British election in decades, while security was tight at the overnight count. Two days earlier a man was arrested for sending a death threat to Rochdale’s former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, who was contesting the seat for the anti-immigration Reform UK, which hired security guards and moved some of its staff out of a shared property over fears for their safety. Nigel Farage’s party, which came sixth with a dismal 6% of the vote, lodged a formal complaint about Galloway’s team distributing leaflets outside polling venues on Thursday. The complaint to Rochdale’s returning officer, which has been seen by the Guardian, accuses Galloway’s activists of “breaking the rules with impunity” – an accusation they would deny. Galloway’s team, meanwhile, claimed Labour had tried to solicit votes inside a polling station and said its banners had been torn down all over Rochdale. Observers will seek to draw wider lessons from Galloway’s striking victory, yet this was a contest virtually unprecedented in modern times. Labour, who had held the seat with a near-10,000 vote majority, abandoned its campaign after it emerged that its candidate had shared inflammatory conspiracy theories about Israel . But Labour would be wrong to dismiss the result as an aberration. “I think this is a historic shift away from Labour,” said Wafa Hameed Salik, 43, before prayers outside Rochdale’s Bilal mosque on Friday. 0:32 'I apologise to voters in Rochdale,' Starmer says after Galloway wins byelection – video The Labour party runs through Salik’s blood: his dad was a respected party figure locally – a road was named after him – and his uncle was until recently the Labour mayor of Rochdale. But he voted for Galloway having lost hope in Starmer’s party. “Labour always thought ‘oh, we have our voters and whatever’ but this is changing,” he said. Galloway’s campaign, he said, was “like an explosion”. The 69-year-old ex-Labour MP, unseating his former party for the third time in another campaign fought largely on the Middle East, used a speech outside the Bilal mosque to ask Muslims how they would answer “on judgment day” when they were asked: “What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?” Seen by some as cynical, divisive and manipulative, Galloway doubled down, describing the byelection in one of Britain’s poorest towns as “a referendum on Gaza”. Outside Rochdale’s mainly-Muslim areas, he sought to show he cared about local issues, delivering leaflets mentioning potholes and Primark – he promised to bring the shop to the town’s shopping centre – written on literature in the colours of the Palestinian flag. Khalid Javed, 64, who voted for Galloway in this election, said voters like him in Rochdale wanted to express their lack of trust in the political system. “We wanted to mess everything up,” he said. “We want to show that there’s no support for the major parties. We don’t want to listen, I despise these people. They don’t represent us.” View image in fullscreen George Galloway’s election leaflets in the colours of the Palestinian flag. During campaigning he described the byelection as ‘a referendum on Gaza’. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This dissatisfaction with the main parties is not exclusive to the Muslim community, however. David Tully, a local businessman and a political newcomer, finished second in the byelection with an extraordinary 21% of the vote. This meant three-fifths of the votes went to the insurgents, Galloway and Tully, more than double the number shared between the three main parties, although Labour’s campaign was cut short. How this byelection result is reflected at the general election may be largely down to Labour. If the party can mend relations with the Muslim voters who flocked en masse to Galloway, then they will probably retake Rochdale within months. If not, the party could be out in the cold in the town for years . Back outside Bilal mosque, another worshipper – who did not want to give his full name – said he liked and respected Galloway but did not vote for him because the MP’s speeches, however powerful, were “not going to make a difference”. “What is he really gonna do? The whole world can’t do anything [to stop the conflict],” Mr Arfan, 34, said. Having previously voted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, on Thursday he stayed at home: “I’ve got no faith in none of them. They’re useless.” I n the freezing dark outside Rochdale leisure centre, Hassan Ali, 26, celebrated George Galloway’s stunning victory hours before the result was officially declared. “We have created history tonight,” he said in the small hours of Friday, surrounded by dozens of young men, slapping each other on the back and video-calling friends in English, Urdu and Bengali. “Our families have voted for Labour for many years because they’ve got used to ticking the flower box, but this is a vote for change,” said Ali, a community worker. Around him, several men in their 20s said they had voted for the first time on Thursday in order to send Galloway to parliament – and deliver a message to Labour. “Labour have been running these streets for years and they’ve done nothing,” Ali said. “Starmer has betrayed the people of Rochdale and the Asian vote.” Galloway, the irrepressible agitator, is back in the Commons representing a fourth constituency in nearly four decades after urging voters to deliver “the ultimate protest” over Labour’s handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict . The scale of his victory, winning a near-6,000 vote majority, was the final surprise in a byelection beset by chaos, controversy and allegations of dirty tricks. Police officers guarded polling stations in parts of the Greater Manchester town in a way not seen in a British election in decades, while security was tight at the overnight count. Two days earlier a man was arrested for sending a death threat to Rochdale’s former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, who was contesting the seat for the anti-immigration Reform UK, which hired security guards and moved some of its staff out of a shared property over fears for their safety. Nigel Farage’s party, which came sixth with a dismal 6% of the vote, lodged a formal complaint about Galloway’s team distributing leaflets outside polling venues on Thursday. The complaint to Rochdale’s returning officer, which has been seen by the Guardian, accuses Galloway’s activists of “breaking the rules with impunity” – an accusation they would deny. Galloway’s team, meanwhile, claimed Labour had tried to solicit votes inside a polling station and said its banners had been torn down all over Rochdale. Observers will seek to draw wider lessons from Galloway’s striking victory, yet this was a contest virtually unprecedented in modern times. Labour, who had held the seat with a near-10,000 vote majority, abandoned its campaign after it emerged that its candidate had shared inflammatory conspiracy theories about Israel . But Labour would be wrong to dismiss the result as an aberration. “I think this is a historic shift away from Labour,” said Wafa Hameed Salik, 43, before prayers outside Rochdale’s Bilal mosque on Friday. 0:32 'I apologise to voters in Rochdale,' Starmer says after Galloway wins byelection – video The Labour party runs through Salik’s blood: his dad was a respected party figure locally – a road was named after him – and his uncle was until recently the Labour mayor of Rochdale. But he voted for Galloway having lost hope in Starmer’s party. “Labour always thought ‘oh, we have our voters and whatever’ but this is changing,” he said. Galloway’s campaign, he said, was “like an explosion”. The 69-year-old ex-Labour MP, unseating his former party for the third time in another campaign fought largely on the Middle East, used a speech outside the Bilal mosque to ask Muslims how they would answer “on judgment day” when they were asked: “What did you do when Keir Starmer asked you to endorse what he has done?” Seen by some as cynical, divisive and manipulative, Galloway doubled down, describing the byelection in one of Britain’s poorest towns as “a referendum on Gaza”. Outside Rochdale’s mainly-Muslim areas, he sought to show he cared about local issues, delivering leaflets mentioning potholes and Primark – he promised to bring the shop to the town’s shopping centre – written on literature in the colours of the Palestinian flag. Khalid Javed, 64, who voted for Galloway in this election, said voters like him in Rochdale wanted to express their lack of trust in the political system. “We wanted to mess everything up,” he said. “We want to show that there’s no support for the major parties. We don’t want to listen, I despise these people. They don’t represent us.” This dissatisfaction with the main parties is not exclusive to the Muslim community, however. David Tully, a local businessman and a political newcomer, finished second in the byelection with an extraordinary 21% of the vote. This meant three-fifths of the votes went to the insurgents, Galloway and Tully, more than double the number shared between the three main parties, although Labour’s campaign was cut short. How this byelection result is reflected at the general election may be largely down to Labour. If the party can mend relations with the Muslim voters who flocked en masse to Galloway, then they will probably retake Rochdale within months. If not, the party could be out in the cold in the town for years . Back outside Bilal mosque, another worshipper – who did not want to give his full name – said he liked and respected Galloway but did not vote for him because the MP’s speeches, however powerful, were “not going to make a difference”. “What is he really gonna do? The whole world can’t do anything [to stop the conflict],” Mr Arfan, 34, said. Having previously voted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, on Thursday he stayed at home: “I’ve got no faith in none of them. They’re useless.” Explore more on these topics Byelections George Galloway Local politics Greater Manchester North of England Israel-Gaza war Labour features Share Reuse this content Byelections George Galloway Local politics Greater Manchester North of England Israel-Gaza war Labour features |
Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech
2:26 Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu speech – video This article is more than 1 year old Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech This article is more than 1 year old PM condemns ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality’ in wake of Gaza war, in sometimes rambling address Rishi Sunak has claimed extremist groups in the UK are “trying to tear us apart”, in a hastily arranged Downing Street statement that came hours after George Galloway won a byelection in Rochdale. Standing outside No 10 late on Friday, the prime minister condemned what he called “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” after the 7 October massacre by Hamas and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. He also claimed democracy itself was a target, as he condemned the election of Galloway, who easily won the seat in Rochdale on a platform that focused on anti-Israel sentiment over Gaza. However, in a sometimes rambling and seemingly contradictory 10-minute address, Sunak made points likely to anger MPs on the right of the Conservative party such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists. Sunak was at pains to stress the recent abuse of Muslim Britons as well as the Jewish community, and to highlight the threat from far-right groups as well as Islamists. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” he said, directly addressing those who had taken part in the series of huge protests across the UK. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens. Let us prove these extremists wrong and show them that even when we disagree, we will never be disunited.” But the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, responded: “The British people will take no lessons from a prime minister and Conservative party who have sowed the seeds of division for years.” Sunak added: “Yes, you can march and protest with passion, you can demand the protection of civilian life. But no, you cannot call for violent jihad.” But he failed to address stinging criticism of MPs in his own party, or his own failure to call out their remarks. He spoke less than a week after Lee Anderson , the former Conservative party deputy chair, had the whip withdrawn following remarks about the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, that were widely condemned as offensive and Islamophobic. Braverman and Liz Truss have also been criticised and accused of deliberately stoking divisions. In parts of Sunak’s impromptu speech, which was announced with minimal notice, he painted a picture of political bedlam which some opponents argue is overstated. “In recent weeks and months, we’ve seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence,” he said. “I need to speak to you all this evening because this situation has gone on long enough and demands a response not just from government, but from all of us.” There were, he said, “forces here at home trying to tear us apart” by taking advantage of the “very human angst that we all feel about the terrible suffering that war brings to the innocent, to women and children, to advance a divisive, hateful ideological agenda”. The address contained no new policies, beyond a vague commitment for a “robust framework” for government to tackle extremism at its roots. But Sunak did urge police to make greater use of existing powers to tackle things such as protesters disrupting political meetings or projecting images on to parliament. He said: “This week, I’ve met with senior police officers and made clear it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage these protests, but police them. I say this to the police: we will back you when you take action.” It was after the meeting with police on Wednesday that Sunak said there was “a growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule ”, an assessment civil liberties groups and others said was concerning and a potential harbinger of even tougher anti-protest laws. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, appeared to back the prime minister’s message calling for unity in the country. He said: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently. “It is an important task of leadership to defend our values and the common bonds that hold us together. Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget Read more “Citizens have a right to go about their business without intimidation and elected representatives should be able to do their jobs and cast their votes without fear or favour. “This is something agreed across the parties and which we should all defend.” Davey said: “This is the same prime minister who made Suella Braverman his home secretary and Lee Anderson his party’s deputy chairman. “If the prime minister is serious about bringing people together, he would call a general election now so that the British public can decide the future of our country.” Galloway said he did not understand Sunak’s suggestions that he glorified Hezbollah but hoped they could discuss it next week if the prime minister “has the guts”. Sunak said the newly elected MP for Rochdale “dismisses the horror of what happened on October 7”, “glorifies Hezbollah” and is “endorsed by Nick Griffin, the racist former leader of the BNP”. “I’m not responsible for whoever declares they endorse me … I’ve never met Mr Griffin and have no intention to,” Galloway told Channel 5 News. “I don’t know what the glorifying of Hezbollah is all about but maybe he can tell me on Wednesday at prime minister’s questions if he’s got the guts.” Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak Protest Israel-Gaza war Conservatives Lee Anderson news Share Reuse this content 2:26 Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu speech – video This article is more than 1 year old Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech This article is more than 1 year old PM condemns ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality’ in wake of Gaza war, in sometimes rambling address Rishi Sunak has claimed extremist groups in the UK are “trying to tear us apart”, in a hastily arranged Downing Street statement that came hours after George Galloway won a byelection in Rochdale. Standing outside No 10 late on Friday, the prime minister condemned what he called “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” after the 7 October massacre by Hamas and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. He also claimed democracy itself was a target, as he condemned the election of Galloway, who easily won the seat in Rochdale on a platform that focused on anti-Israel sentiment over Gaza. However, in a sometimes rambling and seemingly contradictory 10-minute address, Sunak made points likely to anger MPs on the right of the Conservative party such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists. Sunak was at pains to stress the recent abuse of Muslim Britons as well as the Jewish community, and to highlight the threat from far-right groups as well as Islamists. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” he said, directly addressing those who had taken part in the series of huge protests across the UK. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens. Let us prove these extremists wrong and show them that even when we disagree, we will never be disunited.” But the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, responded: “The British people will take no lessons from a prime minister and Conservative party who have sowed the seeds of division for years.” Sunak added: “Yes, you can march and protest with passion, you can demand the protection of civilian life. But no, you cannot call for violent jihad.” But he failed to address stinging criticism of MPs in his own party, or his own failure to call out their remarks. He spoke less than a week after Lee Anderson , the former Conservative party deputy chair, had the whip withdrawn following remarks about the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, that were widely condemned as offensive and Islamophobic. Braverman and Liz Truss have also been criticised and accused of deliberately stoking divisions. In parts of Sunak’s impromptu speech, which was announced with minimal notice, he painted a picture of political bedlam which some opponents argue is overstated. “In recent weeks and months, we’ve seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence,” he said. “I need to speak to you all this evening because this situation has gone on long enough and demands a response not just from government, but from all of us.” There were, he said, “forces here at home trying to tear us apart” by taking advantage of the “very human angst that we all feel about the terrible suffering that war brings to the innocent, to women and children, to advance a divisive, hateful ideological agenda”. The address contained no new policies, beyond a vague commitment for a “robust framework” for government to tackle extremism at its roots. But Sunak did urge police to make greater use of existing powers to tackle things such as protesters disrupting political meetings or projecting images on to parliament. He said: “This week, I’ve met with senior police officers and made clear it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage these protests, but police them. I say this to the police: we will back you when you take action.” It was after the meeting with police on Wednesday that Sunak said there was “a growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule ”, an assessment civil liberties groups and others said was concerning and a potential harbinger of even tougher anti-protest laws. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, appeared to back the prime minister’s message calling for unity in the country. He said: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently. “It is an important task of leadership to defend our values and the common bonds that hold us together. Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget Read more “Citizens have a right to go about their business without intimidation and elected representatives should be able to do their jobs and cast their votes without fear or favour. “This is something agreed across the parties and which we should all defend.” Davey said: “This is the same prime minister who made Suella Braverman his home secretary and Lee Anderson his party’s deputy chairman. “If the prime minister is serious about bringing people together, he would call a general election now so that the British public can decide the future of our country.” Galloway said he did not understand Sunak’s suggestions that he glorified Hezbollah but hoped they could discuss it next week if the prime minister “has the guts”. Sunak said the newly elected MP for Rochdale “dismisses the horror of what happened on October 7”, “glorifies Hezbollah” and is “endorsed by Nick Griffin, the racist former leader of the BNP”. “I’m not responsible for whoever declares they endorse me … I’ve never met Mr Griffin and have no intention to,” Galloway told Channel 5 News. “I don’t know what the glorifying of Hezbollah is all about but maybe he can tell me on Wednesday at prime minister’s questions if he’s got the guts.” Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak Protest Israel-Gaza war Conservatives Lee Anderson news Share Reuse this content 2:26 Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu speech – video 2:26 Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu speech – video 2:26 Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu speech – video 2:26 Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu speech – video This article is more than 1 year old Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old PM condemns ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality’ in wake of Gaza war, in sometimes rambling address PM condemns ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality’ in wake of Gaza war, in sometimes rambling address PM condemns ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality’ in wake of Gaza war, in sometimes rambling address Rishi Sunak has claimed extremist groups in the UK are “trying to tear us apart”, in a hastily arranged Downing Street statement that came hours after George Galloway won a byelection in Rochdale. Standing outside No 10 late on Friday, the prime minister condemned what he called “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” after the 7 October massacre by Hamas and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. He also claimed democracy itself was a target, as he condemned the election of Galloway, who easily won the seat in Rochdale on a platform that focused on anti-Israel sentiment over Gaza. However, in a sometimes rambling and seemingly contradictory 10-minute address, Sunak made points likely to anger MPs on the right of the Conservative party such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists. Sunak was at pains to stress the recent abuse of Muslim Britons as well as the Jewish community, and to highlight the threat from far-right groups as well as Islamists. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” he said, directly addressing those who had taken part in the series of huge protests across the UK. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens. Let us prove these extremists wrong and show them that even when we disagree, we will never be disunited.” But the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, responded: “The British people will take no lessons from a prime minister and Conservative party who have sowed the seeds of division for years.” Sunak added: “Yes, you can march and protest with passion, you can demand the protection of civilian life. But no, you cannot call for violent jihad.” But he failed to address stinging criticism of MPs in his own party, or his own failure to call out their remarks. He spoke less than a week after Lee Anderson , the former Conservative party deputy chair, had the whip withdrawn following remarks about the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, that were widely condemned as offensive and Islamophobic. Braverman and Liz Truss have also been criticised and accused of deliberately stoking divisions. In parts of Sunak’s impromptu speech, which was announced with minimal notice, he painted a picture of political bedlam which some opponents argue is overstated. “In recent weeks and months, we’ve seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence,” he said. “I need to speak to you all this evening because this situation has gone on long enough and demands a response not just from government, but from all of us.” There were, he said, “forces here at home trying to tear us apart” by taking advantage of the “very human angst that we all feel about the terrible suffering that war brings to the innocent, to women and children, to advance a divisive, hateful ideological agenda”. The address contained no new policies, beyond a vague commitment for a “robust framework” for government to tackle extremism at its roots. But Sunak did urge police to make greater use of existing powers to tackle things such as protesters disrupting political meetings or projecting images on to parliament. He said: “This week, I’ve met with senior police officers and made clear it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage these protests, but police them. I say this to the police: we will back you when you take action.” It was after the meeting with police on Wednesday that Sunak said there was “a growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule ”, an assessment civil liberties groups and others said was concerning and a potential harbinger of even tougher anti-protest laws. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, appeared to back the prime minister’s message calling for unity in the country. He said: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently. “It is an important task of leadership to defend our values and the common bonds that hold us together. Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget Read more “Citizens have a right to go about their business without intimidation and elected representatives should be able to do their jobs and cast their votes without fear or favour. “This is something agreed across the parties and which we should all defend.” Davey said: “This is the same prime minister who made Suella Braverman his home secretary and Lee Anderson his party’s deputy chairman. “If the prime minister is serious about bringing people together, he would call a general election now so that the British public can decide the future of our country.” Galloway said he did not understand Sunak’s suggestions that he glorified Hezbollah but hoped they could discuss it next week if the prime minister “has the guts”. Sunak said the newly elected MP for Rochdale “dismisses the horror of what happened on October 7”, “glorifies Hezbollah” and is “endorsed by Nick Griffin, the racist former leader of the BNP”. “I’m not responsible for whoever declares they endorse me … I’ve never met Mr Griffin and have no intention to,” Galloway told Channel 5 News. “I don’t know what the glorifying of Hezbollah is all about but maybe he can tell me on Wednesday at prime minister’s questions if he’s got the guts.” Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak Protest Israel-Gaza war Conservatives Lee Anderson news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak has claimed extremist groups in the UK are “trying to tear us apart”, in a hastily arranged Downing Street statement that came hours after George Galloway won a byelection in Rochdale. Standing outside No 10 late on Friday, the prime minister condemned what he called “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” after the 7 October massacre by Hamas and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. He also claimed democracy itself was a target, as he condemned the election of Galloway, who easily won the seat in Rochdale on a platform that focused on anti-Israel sentiment over Gaza. However, in a sometimes rambling and seemingly contradictory 10-minute address, Sunak made points likely to anger MPs on the right of the Conservative party such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists. Sunak was at pains to stress the recent abuse of Muslim Britons as well as the Jewish community, and to highlight the threat from far-right groups as well as Islamists. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” he said, directly addressing those who had taken part in the series of huge protests across the UK. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens. Let us prove these extremists wrong and show them that even when we disagree, we will never be disunited.” But the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, responded: “The British people will take no lessons from a prime minister and Conservative party who have sowed the seeds of division for years.” Sunak added: “Yes, you can march and protest with passion, you can demand the protection of civilian life. But no, you cannot call for violent jihad.” But he failed to address stinging criticism of MPs in his own party, or his own failure to call out their remarks. He spoke less than a week after Lee Anderson , the former Conservative party deputy chair, had the whip withdrawn following remarks about the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, that were widely condemned as offensive and Islamophobic. Braverman and Liz Truss have also been criticised and accused of deliberately stoking divisions. In parts of Sunak’s impromptu speech, which was announced with minimal notice, he painted a picture of political bedlam which some opponents argue is overstated. “In recent weeks and months, we’ve seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence,” he said. “I need to speak to you all this evening because this situation has gone on long enough and demands a response not just from government, but from all of us.” There were, he said, “forces here at home trying to tear us apart” by taking advantage of the “very human angst that we all feel about the terrible suffering that war brings to the innocent, to women and children, to advance a divisive, hateful ideological agenda”. The address contained no new policies, beyond a vague commitment for a “robust framework” for government to tackle extremism at its roots. But Sunak did urge police to make greater use of existing powers to tackle things such as protesters disrupting political meetings or projecting images on to parliament. He said: “This week, I’ve met with senior police officers and made clear it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage these protests, but police them. I say this to the police: we will back you when you take action.” It was after the meeting with police on Wednesday that Sunak said there was “a growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule ”, an assessment civil liberties groups and others said was concerning and a potential harbinger of even tougher anti-protest laws. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, appeared to back the prime minister’s message calling for unity in the country. He said: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently. “It is an important task of leadership to defend our values and the common bonds that hold us together. Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget Read more “Citizens have a right to go about their business without intimidation and elected representatives should be able to do their jobs and cast their votes without fear or favour. “This is something agreed across the parties and which we should all defend.” Davey said: “This is the same prime minister who made Suella Braverman his home secretary and Lee Anderson his party’s deputy chairman. “If the prime minister is serious about bringing people together, he would call a general election now so that the British public can decide the future of our country.” Galloway said he did not understand Sunak’s suggestions that he glorified Hezbollah but hoped they could discuss it next week if the prime minister “has the guts”. Sunak said the newly elected MP for Rochdale “dismisses the horror of what happened on October 7”, “glorifies Hezbollah” and is “endorsed by Nick Griffin, the racist former leader of the BNP”. “I’m not responsible for whoever declares they endorse me … I’ve never met Mr Griffin and have no intention to,” Galloway told Channel 5 News. “I don’t know what the glorifying of Hezbollah is all about but maybe he can tell me on Wednesday at prime minister’s questions if he’s got the guts.” Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak Protest Israel-Gaza war Conservatives Lee Anderson news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak has claimed extremist groups in the UK are “trying to tear us apart”, in a hastily arranged Downing Street statement that came hours after George Galloway won a byelection in Rochdale. Standing outside No 10 late on Friday, the prime minister condemned what he called “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” after the 7 October massacre by Hamas and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. He also claimed democracy itself was a target, as he condemned the election of Galloway, who easily won the seat in Rochdale on a platform that focused on anti-Israel sentiment over Gaza. However, in a sometimes rambling and seemingly contradictory 10-minute address, Sunak made points likely to anger MPs on the right of the Conservative party such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists. Sunak was at pains to stress the recent abuse of Muslim Britons as well as the Jewish community, and to highlight the threat from far-right groups as well as Islamists. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” he said, directly addressing those who had taken part in the series of huge protests across the UK. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens. Let us prove these extremists wrong and show them that even when we disagree, we will never be disunited.” But the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, responded: “The British people will take no lessons from a prime minister and Conservative party who have sowed the seeds of division for years.” Sunak added: “Yes, you can march and protest with passion, you can demand the protection of civilian life. But no, you cannot call for violent jihad.” But he failed to address stinging criticism of MPs in his own party, or his own failure to call out their remarks. He spoke less than a week after Lee Anderson , the former Conservative party deputy chair, had the whip withdrawn following remarks about the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, that were widely condemned as offensive and Islamophobic. Braverman and Liz Truss have also been criticised and accused of deliberately stoking divisions. In parts of Sunak’s impromptu speech, which was announced with minimal notice, he painted a picture of political bedlam which some opponents argue is overstated. “In recent weeks and months, we’ve seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence,” he said. “I need to speak to you all this evening because this situation has gone on long enough and demands a response not just from government, but from all of us.” There were, he said, “forces here at home trying to tear us apart” by taking advantage of the “very human angst that we all feel about the terrible suffering that war brings to the innocent, to women and children, to advance a divisive, hateful ideological agenda”. The address contained no new policies, beyond a vague commitment for a “robust framework” for government to tackle extremism at its roots. But Sunak did urge police to make greater use of existing powers to tackle things such as protesters disrupting political meetings or projecting images on to parliament. He said: “This week, I’ve met with senior police officers and made clear it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage these protests, but police them. I say this to the police: we will back you when you take action.” It was after the meeting with police on Wednesday that Sunak said there was “a growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule ”, an assessment civil liberties groups and others said was concerning and a potential harbinger of even tougher anti-protest laws. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, appeared to back the prime minister’s message calling for unity in the country. He said: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently. “It is an important task of leadership to defend our values and the common bonds that hold us together. Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget Read more “Citizens have a right to go about their business without intimidation and elected representatives should be able to do their jobs and cast their votes without fear or favour. “This is something agreed across the parties and which we should all defend.” Davey said: “This is the same prime minister who made Suella Braverman his home secretary and Lee Anderson his party’s deputy chairman. “If the prime minister is serious about bringing people together, he would call a general election now so that the British public can decide the future of our country.” Galloway said he did not understand Sunak’s suggestions that he glorified Hezbollah but hoped they could discuss it next week if the prime minister “has the guts”. Sunak said the newly elected MP for Rochdale “dismisses the horror of what happened on October 7”, “glorifies Hezbollah” and is “endorsed by Nick Griffin, the racist former leader of the BNP”. “I’m not responsible for whoever declares they endorse me … I’ve never met Mr Griffin and have no intention to,” Galloway told Channel 5 News. “I don’t know what the glorifying of Hezbollah is all about but maybe he can tell me on Wednesday at prime minister’s questions if he’s got the guts.” Rishi Sunak has claimed extremist groups in the UK are “trying to tear us apart”, in a hastily arranged Downing Street statement that came hours after George Galloway won a byelection in Rochdale. Standing outside No 10 late on Friday, the prime minister condemned what he called “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” after the 7 October massacre by Hamas and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. He also claimed democracy itself was a target, as he condemned the election of Galloway, who easily won the seat in Rochdale on a platform that focused on anti-Israel sentiment over Gaza. However, in a sometimes rambling and seemingly contradictory 10-minute address, Sunak made points likely to anger MPs on the right of the Conservative party such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists. Sunak was at pains to stress the recent abuse of Muslim Britons as well as the Jewish community, and to highlight the threat from far-right groups as well as Islamists. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” he said, directly addressing those who had taken part in the series of huge protests across the UK. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens. Let us prove these extremists wrong and show them that even when we disagree, we will never be disunited.” But the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, responded: “The British people will take no lessons from a prime minister and Conservative party who have sowed the seeds of division for years.” Sunak added: “Yes, you can march and protest with passion, you can demand the protection of civilian life. But no, you cannot call for violent jihad.” But he failed to address stinging criticism of MPs in his own party, or his own failure to call out their remarks. He spoke less than a week after Lee Anderson , the former Conservative party deputy chair, had the whip withdrawn following remarks about the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, that were widely condemned as offensive and Islamophobic. Braverman and Liz Truss have also been criticised and accused of deliberately stoking divisions. In parts of Sunak’s impromptu speech, which was announced with minimal notice, he painted a picture of political bedlam which some opponents argue is overstated. “In recent weeks and months, we’ve seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence,” he said. “I need to speak to you all this evening because this situation has gone on long enough and demands a response not just from government, but from all of us.” There were, he said, “forces here at home trying to tear us apart” by taking advantage of the “very human angst that we all feel about the terrible suffering that war brings to the innocent, to women and children, to advance a divisive, hateful ideological agenda”. The address contained no new policies, beyond a vague commitment for a “robust framework” for government to tackle extremism at its roots. But Sunak did urge police to make greater use of existing powers to tackle things such as protesters disrupting political meetings or projecting images on to parliament. He said: “This week, I’ve met with senior police officers and made clear it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage these protests, but police them. I say this to the police: we will back you when you take action.” It was after the meeting with police on Wednesday that Sunak said there was “a growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule ”, an assessment civil liberties groups and others said was concerning and a potential harbinger of even tougher anti-protest laws. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, appeared to back the prime minister’s message calling for unity in the country. He said: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently. “It is an important task of leadership to defend our values and the common bonds that hold us together. Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget Read more “Citizens have a right to go about their business without intimidation and elected representatives should be able to do their jobs and cast their votes without fear or favour. “This is something agreed across the parties and which we should all defend.” Davey said: “This is the same prime minister who made Suella Braverman his home secretary and Lee Anderson his party’s deputy chairman. “If the prime minister is serious about bringing people together, he would call a general election now so that the British public can decide the future of our country.” Galloway said he did not understand Sunak’s suggestions that he glorified Hezbollah but hoped they could discuss it next week if the prime minister “has the guts”. Sunak said the newly elected MP for Rochdale “dismisses the horror of what happened on October 7”, “glorifies Hezbollah” and is “endorsed by Nick Griffin, the racist former leader of the BNP”. “I’m not responsible for whoever declares they endorse me … I’ve never met Mr Griffin and have no intention to,” Galloway told Channel 5 News. “I don’t know what the glorifying of Hezbollah is all about but maybe he can tell me on Wednesday at prime minister’s questions if he’s got the guts.” Rishi Sunak has claimed extremist groups in the UK are “trying to tear us apart”, in a hastily arranged Downing Street statement that came hours after George Galloway won a byelection in Rochdale. Standing outside No 10 late on Friday, the prime minister condemned what he called “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” after the 7 October massacre by Hamas and the Israeli invasion of Gaza. He also claimed democracy itself was a target, as he condemned the election of Galloway, who easily won the seat in Rochdale on a platform that focused on anti-Israel sentiment over Gaza. However, in a sometimes rambling and seemingly contradictory 10-minute address, Sunak made points likely to anger MPs on the right of the Conservative party such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists. Sunak was at pains to stress the recent abuse of Muslim Britons as well as the Jewish community, and to highlight the threat from far-right groups as well as Islamists. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” he said, directly addressing those who had taken part in the series of huge protests across the UK. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens. Let us prove these extremists wrong and show them that even when we disagree, we will never be disunited.” But the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, responded: “The British people will take no lessons from a prime minister and Conservative party who have sowed the seeds of division for years.” Sunak added: “Yes, you can march and protest with passion, you can demand the protection of civilian life. But no, you cannot call for violent jihad.” But he failed to address stinging criticism of MPs in his own party, or his own failure to call out their remarks. He spoke less than a week after Lee Anderson , the former Conservative party deputy chair, had the whip withdrawn following remarks about the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, that were widely condemned as offensive and Islamophobic. Braverman and Liz Truss have also been criticised and accused of deliberately stoking divisions. In parts of Sunak’s impromptu speech, which was announced with minimal notice, he painted a picture of political bedlam which some opponents argue is overstated. “In recent weeks and months, we’ve seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence,” he said. “I need to speak to you all this evening because this situation has gone on long enough and demands a response not just from government, but from all of us.” There were, he said, “forces here at home trying to tear us apart” by taking advantage of the “very human angst that we all feel about the terrible suffering that war brings to the innocent, to women and children, to advance a divisive, hateful ideological agenda”. The address contained no new policies, beyond a vague commitment for a “robust framework” for government to tackle extremism at its roots. But Sunak did urge police to make greater use of existing powers to tackle things such as protesters disrupting political meetings or projecting images on to parliament. He said: “This week, I’ve met with senior police officers and made clear it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage these protests, but police them. I say this to the police: we will back you when you take action.” It was after the meeting with police on Wednesday that Sunak said there was “a growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule ”, an assessment civil liberties groups and others said was concerning and a potential harbinger of even tougher anti-protest laws. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, appeared to back the prime minister’s message calling for unity in the country. He said: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently. “It is an important task of leadership to defend our values and the common bonds that hold us together. Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget Read more Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget Read more Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget Read more Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget Sunak hints at further national insurance cuts in spring budget “Citizens have a right to go about their business without intimidation and elected representatives should be able to do their jobs and cast their votes without fear or favour. “This is something agreed across the parties and which we should all defend.” Davey said: “This is the same prime minister who made Suella Braverman his home secretary and Lee Anderson his party’s deputy chairman. “If the prime minister is serious about bringing people together, he would call a general election now so that the British public can decide the future of our country.” Galloway said he did not understand Sunak’s suggestions that he glorified Hezbollah but hoped they could discuss it next week if the prime minister “has the guts”. Sunak said the newly elected MP for Rochdale “dismisses the horror of what happened on October 7”, “glorifies Hezbollah” and is “endorsed by Nick Griffin, the racist former leader of the BNP”. “I’m not responsible for whoever declares they endorse me … I’ve never met Mr Griffin and have no intention to,” Galloway told Channel 5 News. “I don’t know what the glorifying of Hezbollah is all about but maybe he can tell me on Wednesday at prime minister’s questions if he’s got the guts.” Explore more on these topics Rishi Sunak Protest Israel-Gaza war Conservatives Lee Anderson news Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak Protest Israel-Gaza war Conservatives Lee Anderson news |
Extremist groups are a growing threat to British democracy, says Rishi Sunak in Downing Street speech – as it happened
Rishi Sunak is speaking outside No 10. He says there’s a growing threat to British democracy – and refers explicitly to the election of George Galloway in the Rochdale byelection last night. The prime minister talks up the tolerance of the “pluralist, modern” country he says the UK is, but says this is under threat from people looking to capitalise on Hamas’ attacks on Israel, and the resulting assault on Gaza, to undermine British values. He names Islamist extremists and the far-right, calling them “two sides of the same extremist coin”. |
Pro-Palestinian protesters voice disgust at Sunak ‘extremist’ comments
Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old Pro-Palestinian protesters voice disgust at Sunak ‘extremist’ comments This article is more than 1 year old Day of action takes place at almost 50 Barclays branches across England and Wales including one in central London Protesters have gathered in London and at almost 50 other locations across England and Wales over Israel’s war in Gaza, a day after Rishi Sunak said democracy was being targeted by extremists. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) singled out Barclays for its day of action, with hundreds of people taking part in a demonstration outside the bank’s Tottenham Court Road branch in the centre of the capital. The PSC called for a boycott of the British bank because it claims Barclays holds “substantial financial ties” with arms companies supplying weapons to Israel . Protesters marched from Mornington Crescent in north London to the Barclays branch. Outside, one demonstrator who preferred not to be named, said she was “beyond frustrated” at the UK government for conflating peaceful protesters with extremism and refusing to acknowledge Islamophobia. “[The] reluctance for our prime minister and government to mention the word Islamophobia is disturbing, because it makes you feel like you’re second class,” she said. “It’s always: ‘They’re trying to infiltrate the UK.’ Are we not part of the UK?” she added. Last week, Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, said the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists on GB News. He has admitted his words were clumsy, but has stood by the comments , which led to him losing the Conservative whip. On Friday, speaking at a lectern outside Downing Street, the prime minister urged protesters to prevent extremists from infiltrating their ranks and warned of more stringent policing. View image in fullscreen Police and demonstrators outside Barclays in Tottenham Court Road. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I want to speak directly to those who choose to continue to protest: don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens.” Pat Mary, a former teacher, and Jocelyn Chaplin, a therapist, said they had come to the demo because they were “disgusted” by Sunak’s comments. “When I heard Sunak’s speech yesterday, I looked online to see if there was a demonstration because even by what I consider his incredibly low standards of integrity, I thought that speech was beyond the pale,” Mary said. “It was honestly one of the most horrible speeches I can remember, and I can remember Enoch Powell’s 1968 speech … there were echoes of that.” Chaplin, who said she had attended most of the pro-Palestine rallies in London , added she was appalled that peaceful protests had been labelled extremist. “The situation has now become horrendous beyond words,” she added. “It is not extremist to call for a ceasefire.” On why it was important for the demonstration to take place outside Barclays Bank, Mary said: “It’s really important to look a little bit behind the scenes at who is funding what. What would happen if the Israeli government of the Israel state no longer had access to western finances, western arms. What would happen?” Mark Etkind shared a similar sentiment, adding that the UK government was acting against the wishes of most British people by not calling for a ceasefire. “The majority of the British people want a ceasefire. The politicians, for whatever reason, are refusing to act on that, so they have to talk about something else.” Instead, they have made up a “ridiculous story” about the Palestine demos, he said, referring to Sunak’s speech. “I’ve been on many demos over many decades. I’ve hardly seen more peaceful, more respectful, more decent demonstrations in my entire life, week after week after week,” Etkind said. Barclays has been contacted for comment. PA Media contributed to this report Explore more on these topics Protest Israel-Gaza war Barclays Israel England Wales London news Share Reuse this content Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old Pro-Palestinian protesters voice disgust at Sunak ‘extremist’ comments This article is more than 1 year old Day of action takes place at almost 50 Barclays branches across England and Wales including one in central London Protesters have gathered in London and at almost 50 other locations across England and Wales over Israel’s war in Gaza, a day after Rishi Sunak said democracy was being targeted by extremists. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) singled out Barclays for its day of action, with hundreds of people taking part in a demonstration outside the bank’s Tottenham Court Road branch in the centre of the capital. The PSC called for a boycott of the British bank because it claims Barclays holds “substantial financial ties” with arms companies supplying weapons to Israel . Protesters marched from Mornington Crescent in north London to the Barclays branch. Outside, one demonstrator who preferred not to be named, said she was “beyond frustrated” at the UK government for conflating peaceful protesters with extremism and refusing to acknowledge Islamophobia. “[The] reluctance for our prime minister and government to mention the word Islamophobia is disturbing, because it makes you feel like you’re second class,” she said. “It’s always: ‘They’re trying to infiltrate the UK.’ Are we not part of the UK?” she added. Last week, Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, said the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists on GB News. He has admitted his words were clumsy, but has stood by the comments , which led to him losing the Conservative whip. On Friday, speaking at a lectern outside Downing Street, the prime minister urged protesters to prevent extremists from infiltrating their ranks and warned of more stringent policing. View image in fullscreen Police and demonstrators outside Barclays in Tottenham Court Road. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I want to speak directly to those who choose to continue to protest: don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens.” Pat Mary, a former teacher, and Jocelyn Chaplin, a therapist, said they had come to the demo because they were “disgusted” by Sunak’s comments. “When I heard Sunak’s speech yesterday, I looked online to see if there was a demonstration because even by what I consider his incredibly low standards of integrity, I thought that speech was beyond the pale,” Mary said. “It was honestly one of the most horrible speeches I can remember, and I can remember Enoch Powell’s 1968 speech … there were echoes of that.” Chaplin, who said she had attended most of the pro-Palestine rallies in London , added she was appalled that peaceful protests had been labelled extremist. “The situation has now become horrendous beyond words,” she added. “It is not extremist to call for a ceasefire.” On why it was important for the demonstration to take place outside Barclays Bank, Mary said: “It’s really important to look a little bit behind the scenes at who is funding what. What would happen if the Israeli government of the Israel state no longer had access to western finances, western arms. What would happen?” Mark Etkind shared a similar sentiment, adding that the UK government was acting against the wishes of most British people by not calling for a ceasefire. “The majority of the British people want a ceasefire. The politicians, for whatever reason, are refusing to act on that, so they have to talk about something else.” Instead, they have made up a “ridiculous story” about the Palestine demos, he said, referring to Sunak’s speech. “I’ve been on many demos over many decades. I’ve hardly seen more peaceful, more respectful, more decent demonstrations in my entire life, week after week after week,” Etkind said. Barclays has been contacted for comment. PA Media contributed to this report Explore more on these topics Protest Israel-Gaza war Barclays Israel England Wales London news Share Reuse this content Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Demonstrators outside Barclays bank in Tottenham Court Road, central London. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old Pro-Palestinian protesters voice disgust at Sunak ‘extremist’ comments This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Pro-Palestinian protesters voice disgust at Sunak ‘extremist’ comments This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Pro-Palestinian protesters voice disgust at Sunak ‘extremist’ comments This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Day of action takes place at almost 50 Barclays branches across England and Wales including one in central London Day of action takes place at almost 50 Barclays branches across England and Wales including one in central London Day of action takes place at almost 50 Barclays branches across England and Wales including one in central London Protesters have gathered in London and at almost 50 other locations across England and Wales over Israel’s war in Gaza, a day after Rishi Sunak said democracy was being targeted by extremists. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) singled out Barclays for its day of action, with hundreds of people taking part in a demonstration outside the bank’s Tottenham Court Road branch in the centre of the capital. The PSC called for a boycott of the British bank because it claims Barclays holds “substantial financial ties” with arms companies supplying weapons to Israel . Protesters marched from Mornington Crescent in north London to the Barclays branch. Outside, one demonstrator who preferred not to be named, said she was “beyond frustrated” at the UK government for conflating peaceful protesters with extremism and refusing to acknowledge Islamophobia. “[The] reluctance for our prime minister and government to mention the word Islamophobia is disturbing, because it makes you feel like you’re second class,” she said. “It’s always: ‘They’re trying to infiltrate the UK.’ Are we not part of the UK?” she added. Last week, Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, said the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists on GB News. He has admitted his words were clumsy, but has stood by the comments , which led to him losing the Conservative whip. On Friday, speaking at a lectern outside Downing Street, the prime minister urged protesters to prevent extremists from infiltrating their ranks and warned of more stringent policing. View image in fullscreen Police and demonstrators outside Barclays in Tottenham Court Road. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I want to speak directly to those who choose to continue to protest: don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens.” Pat Mary, a former teacher, and Jocelyn Chaplin, a therapist, said they had come to the demo because they were “disgusted” by Sunak’s comments. “When I heard Sunak’s speech yesterday, I looked online to see if there was a demonstration because even by what I consider his incredibly low standards of integrity, I thought that speech was beyond the pale,” Mary said. “It was honestly one of the most horrible speeches I can remember, and I can remember Enoch Powell’s 1968 speech … there were echoes of that.” Chaplin, who said she had attended most of the pro-Palestine rallies in London , added she was appalled that peaceful protests had been labelled extremist. “The situation has now become horrendous beyond words,” she added. “It is not extremist to call for a ceasefire.” On why it was important for the demonstration to take place outside Barclays Bank, Mary said: “It’s really important to look a little bit behind the scenes at who is funding what. What would happen if the Israeli government of the Israel state no longer had access to western finances, western arms. What would happen?” Mark Etkind shared a similar sentiment, adding that the UK government was acting against the wishes of most British people by not calling for a ceasefire. “The majority of the British people want a ceasefire. The politicians, for whatever reason, are refusing to act on that, so they have to talk about something else.” Instead, they have made up a “ridiculous story” about the Palestine demos, he said, referring to Sunak’s speech. “I’ve been on many demos over many decades. I’ve hardly seen more peaceful, more respectful, more decent demonstrations in my entire life, week after week after week,” Etkind said. Barclays has been contacted for comment. PA Media contributed to this report Explore more on these topics Protest Israel-Gaza war Barclays Israel England Wales London news Share Reuse this content Protesters have gathered in London and at almost 50 other locations across England and Wales over Israel’s war in Gaza, a day after Rishi Sunak said democracy was being targeted by extremists. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) singled out Barclays for its day of action, with hundreds of people taking part in a demonstration outside the bank’s Tottenham Court Road branch in the centre of the capital. The PSC called for a boycott of the British bank because it claims Barclays holds “substantial financial ties” with arms companies supplying weapons to Israel . Protesters marched from Mornington Crescent in north London to the Barclays branch. Outside, one demonstrator who preferred not to be named, said she was “beyond frustrated” at the UK government for conflating peaceful protesters with extremism and refusing to acknowledge Islamophobia. “[The] reluctance for our prime minister and government to mention the word Islamophobia is disturbing, because it makes you feel like you’re second class,” she said. “It’s always: ‘They’re trying to infiltrate the UK.’ Are we not part of the UK?” she added. Last week, Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, said the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists on GB News. He has admitted his words were clumsy, but has stood by the comments , which led to him losing the Conservative whip. On Friday, speaking at a lectern outside Downing Street, the prime minister urged protesters to prevent extremists from infiltrating their ranks and warned of more stringent policing. View image in fullscreen Police and demonstrators outside Barclays in Tottenham Court Road. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I want to speak directly to those who choose to continue to protest: don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens.” Pat Mary, a former teacher, and Jocelyn Chaplin, a therapist, said they had come to the demo because they were “disgusted” by Sunak’s comments. “When I heard Sunak’s speech yesterday, I looked online to see if there was a demonstration because even by what I consider his incredibly low standards of integrity, I thought that speech was beyond the pale,” Mary said. “It was honestly one of the most horrible speeches I can remember, and I can remember Enoch Powell’s 1968 speech … there were echoes of that.” Chaplin, who said she had attended most of the pro-Palestine rallies in London , added she was appalled that peaceful protests had been labelled extremist. “The situation has now become horrendous beyond words,” she added. “It is not extremist to call for a ceasefire.” On why it was important for the demonstration to take place outside Barclays Bank, Mary said: “It’s really important to look a little bit behind the scenes at who is funding what. What would happen if the Israeli government of the Israel state no longer had access to western finances, western arms. What would happen?” Mark Etkind shared a similar sentiment, adding that the UK government was acting against the wishes of most British people by not calling for a ceasefire. “The majority of the British people want a ceasefire. The politicians, for whatever reason, are refusing to act on that, so they have to talk about something else.” Instead, they have made up a “ridiculous story” about the Palestine demos, he said, referring to Sunak’s speech. “I’ve been on many demos over many decades. I’ve hardly seen more peaceful, more respectful, more decent demonstrations in my entire life, week after week after week,” Etkind said. Barclays has been contacted for comment. PA Media contributed to this report Explore more on these topics Protest Israel-Gaza war Barclays Israel England Wales London news Share Reuse this content Protesters have gathered in London and at almost 50 other locations across England and Wales over Israel’s war in Gaza, a day after Rishi Sunak said democracy was being targeted by extremists. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) singled out Barclays for its day of action, with hundreds of people taking part in a demonstration outside the bank’s Tottenham Court Road branch in the centre of the capital. The PSC called for a boycott of the British bank because it claims Barclays holds “substantial financial ties” with arms companies supplying weapons to Israel . Protesters marched from Mornington Crescent in north London to the Barclays branch. Outside, one demonstrator who preferred not to be named, said she was “beyond frustrated” at the UK government for conflating peaceful protesters with extremism and refusing to acknowledge Islamophobia. “[The] reluctance for our prime minister and government to mention the word Islamophobia is disturbing, because it makes you feel like you’re second class,” she said. “It’s always: ‘They’re trying to infiltrate the UK.’ Are we not part of the UK?” she added. Last week, Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, said the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists on GB News. He has admitted his words were clumsy, but has stood by the comments , which led to him losing the Conservative whip. On Friday, speaking at a lectern outside Downing Street, the prime minister urged protesters to prevent extremists from infiltrating their ranks and warned of more stringent policing. View image in fullscreen Police and demonstrators outside Barclays in Tottenham Court Road. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I want to speak directly to those who choose to continue to protest: don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens.” Pat Mary, a former teacher, and Jocelyn Chaplin, a therapist, said they had come to the demo because they were “disgusted” by Sunak’s comments. “When I heard Sunak’s speech yesterday, I looked online to see if there was a demonstration because even by what I consider his incredibly low standards of integrity, I thought that speech was beyond the pale,” Mary said. “It was honestly one of the most horrible speeches I can remember, and I can remember Enoch Powell’s 1968 speech … there were echoes of that.” Chaplin, who said she had attended most of the pro-Palestine rallies in London , added she was appalled that peaceful protests had been labelled extremist. “The situation has now become horrendous beyond words,” she added. “It is not extremist to call for a ceasefire.” On why it was important for the demonstration to take place outside Barclays Bank, Mary said: “It’s really important to look a little bit behind the scenes at who is funding what. What would happen if the Israeli government of the Israel state no longer had access to western finances, western arms. What would happen?” Mark Etkind shared a similar sentiment, adding that the UK government was acting against the wishes of most British people by not calling for a ceasefire. “The majority of the British people want a ceasefire. The politicians, for whatever reason, are refusing to act on that, so they have to talk about something else.” Instead, they have made up a “ridiculous story” about the Palestine demos, he said, referring to Sunak’s speech. “I’ve been on many demos over many decades. I’ve hardly seen more peaceful, more respectful, more decent demonstrations in my entire life, week after week after week,” Etkind said. Barclays has been contacted for comment. PA Media contributed to this report Protesters have gathered in London and at almost 50 other locations across England and Wales over Israel’s war in Gaza, a day after Rishi Sunak said democracy was being targeted by extremists. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) singled out Barclays for its day of action, with hundreds of people taking part in a demonstration outside the bank’s Tottenham Court Road branch in the centre of the capital. The PSC called for a boycott of the British bank because it claims Barclays holds “substantial financial ties” with arms companies supplying weapons to Israel . Protesters marched from Mornington Crescent in north London to the Barclays branch. Outside, one demonstrator who preferred not to be named, said she was “beyond frustrated” at the UK government for conflating peaceful protesters with extremism and refusing to acknowledge Islamophobia. “[The] reluctance for our prime minister and government to mention the word Islamophobia is disturbing, because it makes you feel like you’re second class,” she said. “It’s always: ‘They’re trying to infiltrate the UK.’ Are we not part of the UK?” she added. Last week, Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, said the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists on GB News. He has admitted his words were clumsy, but has stood by the comments , which led to him losing the Conservative whip. On Friday, speaking at a lectern outside Downing Street, the prime minister urged protesters to prevent extremists from infiltrating their ranks and warned of more stringent policing. View image in fullscreen Police and demonstrators outside Barclays in Tottenham Court Road. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I want to speak directly to those who choose to continue to protest: don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens.” Pat Mary, a former teacher, and Jocelyn Chaplin, a therapist, said they had come to the demo because they were “disgusted” by Sunak’s comments. “When I heard Sunak’s speech yesterday, I looked online to see if there was a demonstration because even by what I consider his incredibly low standards of integrity, I thought that speech was beyond the pale,” Mary said. “It was honestly one of the most horrible speeches I can remember, and I can remember Enoch Powell’s 1968 speech … there were echoes of that.” Chaplin, who said she had attended most of the pro-Palestine rallies in London , added she was appalled that peaceful protests had been labelled extremist. “The situation has now become horrendous beyond words,” she added. “It is not extremist to call for a ceasefire.” On why it was important for the demonstration to take place outside Barclays Bank, Mary said: “It’s really important to look a little bit behind the scenes at who is funding what. What would happen if the Israeli government of the Israel state no longer had access to western finances, western arms. What would happen?” Mark Etkind shared a similar sentiment, adding that the UK government was acting against the wishes of most British people by not calling for a ceasefire. “The majority of the British people want a ceasefire. The politicians, for whatever reason, are refusing to act on that, so they have to talk about something else.” Instead, they have made up a “ridiculous story” about the Palestine demos, he said, referring to Sunak’s speech. “I’ve been on many demos over many decades. I’ve hardly seen more peaceful, more respectful, more decent demonstrations in my entire life, week after week after week,” Etkind said. Barclays has been contacted for comment. PA Media contributed to this report Protesters have gathered in London and at almost 50 other locations across England and Wales over Israel’s war in Gaza, a day after Rishi Sunak said democracy was being targeted by extremists. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) singled out Barclays for its day of action, with hundreds of people taking part in a demonstration outside the bank’s Tottenham Court Road branch in the centre of the capital. The PSC called for a boycott of the British bank because it claims Barclays holds “substantial financial ties” with arms companies supplying weapons to Israel . Protesters marched from Mornington Crescent in north London to the Barclays branch. Outside, one demonstrator who preferred not to be named, said she was “beyond frustrated” at the UK government for conflating peaceful protesters with extremism and refusing to acknowledge Islamophobia. “[The] reluctance for our prime minister and government to mention the word Islamophobia is disturbing, because it makes you feel like you’re second class,” she said. “It’s always: ‘They’re trying to infiltrate the UK.’ Are we not part of the UK?” she added. Last week, Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, said the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, was under the control of Islamists on GB News. He has admitted his words were clumsy, but has stood by the comments , which led to him losing the Conservative whip. On Friday, speaking at a lectern outside Downing Street, the prime minister urged protesters to prevent extremists from infiltrating their ranks and warned of more stringent policing. “I want to speak directly to those who choose to continue to protest: don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. “You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens.” Pat Mary, a former teacher, and Jocelyn Chaplin, a therapist, said they had come to the demo because they were “disgusted” by Sunak’s comments. “When I heard Sunak’s speech yesterday, I looked online to see if there was a demonstration because even by what I consider his incredibly low standards of integrity, I thought that speech was beyond the pale,” Mary said. “It was honestly one of the most horrible speeches I can remember, and I can remember Enoch Powell’s 1968 speech … there were echoes of that.” Chaplin, who said she had attended most of the pro-Palestine rallies in London , added she was appalled that peaceful protests had been labelled extremist. “The situation has now become horrendous beyond words,” she added. “It is not extremist to call for a ceasefire.” On why it was important for the demonstration to take place outside Barclays Bank, Mary said: “It’s really important to look a little bit behind the scenes at who is funding what. What would happen if the Israeli government of the Israel state no longer had access to western finances, western arms. What would happen?” Mark Etkind shared a similar sentiment, adding that the UK government was acting against the wishes of most British people by not calling for a ceasefire. “The majority of the British people want a ceasefire. The politicians, for whatever reason, are refusing to act on that, so they have to talk about something else.” Instead, they have made up a “ridiculous story” about the Palestine demos, he said, referring to Sunak’s speech. “I’ve been on many demos over many decades. I’ve hardly seen more peaceful, more respectful, more decent demonstrations in my entire life, week after week after week,” Etkind said. Barclays has been contacted for comment. PA Media contributed to this report Explore more on these topics Protest Israel-Gaza war Barclays Israel England Wales London news Share Reuse this content Protest Israel-Gaza war Barclays Israel England Wales London news |
Two charged for pouring porridge and jam on Queen Victoria bust in Glasgow
A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA View image in fullscreen A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA This article is more than 1 year old Two charged for pouring porridge and jam on Queen Victoria bust in Glasgow This article is more than 1 year old Women from This Is Rigged campaign group also spray-painted a profanity on the plinth at Kelvingrove Museum Two members of a campaign group have been charged after they poured porridge and jam on a bust of Queen Victoria and spray-painted the word “cunt” on the plinth at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow. Sorcha Ni Mhairtin, 30, and Hannah Taylor, 23 from This Is Rigged carried out the actions around midday on Sunday before reportedly gluing themselves to the plinth. The group said it carried out the act to protest against increasing food insecurity. View image in fullscreen The jam and porridge-covered bust. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA Ni Mhairtin, an Irish activist and community food worker in Glasgow, said: “We refuse to be dragged back to the Victorian era. Diseases of starvation including scurvy and rickets are on the rise. “Freedom begins with breakfast and if you can’t understand that, we’ll shove it in your face. Food is a human right, and we call out the rotten systems under which we are suffering.” Other stunts the group has carried out this year include occupying the royal dining room at the Palace of Holyroodhouse. This is Rigged has said it will continue to carry out similar actions until its demands are met. They include supermarkets reducing the price of baby formula to March 2021 prices and the Scottish government funding and implementing a community food hub for every 500 households in Scotland. PA Media approached the museum, which declined to comment. A spokesperson from Police Scotland said: “Around 11.55am on Sunday March 3 2024, police were called to a report of a protest and alleged vandalism within Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow. “Two women, aged 23 and 30 years, have been arrested and charged following the incident. They have been released on an undertaking to appear at Glasgow sheriff court at a later date. A report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal.” Explore more on these topics UK news Scotland news Share Reuse this content A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA View image in fullscreen A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA This article is more than 1 year old Two charged for pouring porridge and jam on Queen Victoria bust in Glasgow This article is more than 1 year old Women from This Is Rigged campaign group also spray-painted a profanity on the plinth at Kelvingrove Museum Two members of a campaign group have been charged after they poured porridge and jam on a bust of Queen Victoria and spray-painted the word “cunt” on the plinth at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow. Sorcha Ni Mhairtin, 30, and Hannah Taylor, 23 from This Is Rigged carried out the actions around midday on Sunday before reportedly gluing themselves to the plinth. The group said it carried out the act to protest against increasing food insecurity. View image in fullscreen The jam and porridge-covered bust. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA Ni Mhairtin, an Irish activist and community food worker in Glasgow, said: “We refuse to be dragged back to the Victorian era. Diseases of starvation including scurvy and rickets are on the rise. “Freedom begins with breakfast and if you can’t understand that, we’ll shove it in your face. Food is a human right, and we call out the rotten systems under which we are suffering.” Other stunts the group has carried out this year include occupying the royal dining room at the Palace of Holyroodhouse. This is Rigged has said it will continue to carry out similar actions until its demands are met. They include supermarkets reducing the price of baby formula to March 2021 prices and the Scottish government funding and implementing a community food hub for every 500 households in Scotland. PA Media approached the museum, which declined to comment. A spokesperson from Police Scotland said: “Around 11.55am on Sunday March 3 2024, police were called to a report of a protest and alleged vandalism within Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow. “Two women, aged 23 and 30 years, have been arrested and charged following the incident. They have been released on an undertaking to appear at Glasgow sheriff court at a later date. A report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal.” Explore more on these topics UK news Scotland news Share Reuse this content A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA View image in fullscreen A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA View image in fullscreen A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA View image in fullscreen A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA View image in fullscreen A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA A photo issued by This Is Rigged of a protester smearing porridge and jam on the bust of Queen Victoria on Sunday. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA This article is more than 1 year old Two charged for pouring porridge and jam on Queen Victoria bust in Glasgow This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Two charged for pouring porridge and jam on Queen Victoria bust in Glasgow This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Two charged for pouring porridge and jam on Queen Victoria bust in Glasgow This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Women from This Is Rigged campaign group also spray-painted a profanity on the plinth at Kelvingrove Museum Women from This Is Rigged campaign group also spray-painted a profanity on the plinth at Kelvingrove Museum Women from This Is Rigged campaign group also spray-painted a profanity on the plinth at Kelvingrove Museum Two members of a campaign group have been charged after they poured porridge and jam on a bust of Queen Victoria and spray-painted the word “cunt” on the plinth at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow. Sorcha Ni Mhairtin, 30, and Hannah Taylor, 23 from This Is Rigged carried out the actions around midday on Sunday before reportedly gluing themselves to the plinth. The group said it carried out the act to protest against increasing food insecurity. View image in fullscreen The jam and porridge-covered bust. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA Ni Mhairtin, an Irish activist and community food worker in Glasgow, said: “We refuse to be dragged back to the Victorian era. Diseases of starvation including scurvy and rickets are on the rise. “Freedom begins with breakfast and if you can’t understand that, we’ll shove it in your face. Food is a human right, and we call out the rotten systems under which we are suffering.” Other stunts the group has carried out this year include occupying the royal dining room at the Palace of Holyroodhouse. This is Rigged has said it will continue to carry out similar actions until its demands are met. They include supermarkets reducing the price of baby formula to March 2021 prices and the Scottish government funding and implementing a community food hub for every 500 households in Scotland. PA Media approached the museum, which declined to comment. A spokesperson from Police Scotland said: “Around 11.55am on Sunday March 3 2024, police were called to a report of a protest and alleged vandalism within Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow. “Two women, aged 23 and 30 years, have been arrested and charged following the incident. They have been released on an undertaking to appear at Glasgow sheriff court at a later date. A report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal.” Explore more on these topics UK news Scotland news Share Reuse this content Two members of a campaign group have been charged after they poured porridge and jam on a bust of Queen Victoria and spray-painted the word “cunt” on the plinth at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow. Sorcha Ni Mhairtin, 30, and Hannah Taylor, 23 from This Is Rigged carried out the actions around midday on Sunday before reportedly gluing themselves to the plinth. The group said it carried out the act to protest against increasing food insecurity. View image in fullscreen The jam and porridge-covered bust. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA Ni Mhairtin, an Irish activist and community food worker in Glasgow, said: “We refuse to be dragged back to the Victorian era. Diseases of starvation including scurvy and rickets are on the rise. “Freedom begins with breakfast and if you can’t understand that, we’ll shove it in your face. Food is a human right, and we call out the rotten systems under which we are suffering.” Other stunts the group has carried out this year include occupying the royal dining room at the Palace of Holyroodhouse. This is Rigged has said it will continue to carry out similar actions until its demands are met. They include supermarkets reducing the price of baby formula to March 2021 prices and the Scottish government funding and implementing a community food hub for every 500 households in Scotland. PA Media approached the museum, which declined to comment. A spokesperson from Police Scotland said: “Around 11.55am on Sunday March 3 2024, police were called to a report of a protest and alleged vandalism within Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow. “Two women, aged 23 and 30 years, have been arrested and charged following the incident. They have been released on an undertaking to appear at Glasgow sheriff court at a later date. A report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal.” Explore more on these topics UK news Scotland news Share Reuse this content Two members of a campaign group have been charged after they poured porridge and jam on a bust of Queen Victoria and spray-painted the word “cunt” on the plinth at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow. Sorcha Ni Mhairtin, 30, and Hannah Taylor, 23 from This Is Rigged carried out the actions around midday on Sunday before reportedly gluing themselves to the plinth. The group said it carried out the act to protest against increasing food insecurity. View image in fullscreen The jam and porridge-covered bust. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA Ni Mhairtin, an Irish activist and community food worker in Glasgow, said: “We refuse to be dragged back to the Victorian era. Diseases of starvation including scurvy and rickets are on the rise. “Freedom begins with breakfast and if you can’t understand that, we’ll shove it in your face. Food is a human right, and we call out the rotten systems under which we are suffering.” Other stunts the group has carried out this year include occupying the royal dining room at the Palace of Holyroodhouse. This is Rigged has said it will continue to carry out similar actions until its demands are met. They include supermarkets reducing the price of baby formula to March 2021 prices and the Scottish government funding and implementing a community food hub for every 500 households in Scotland. PA Media approached the museum, which declined to comment. A spokesperson from Police Scotland said: “Around 11.55am on Sunday March 3 2024, police were called to a report of a protest and alleged vandalism within Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow. “Two women, aged 23 and 30 years, have been arrested and charged following the incident. They have been released on an undertaking to appear at Glasgow sheriff court at a later date. A report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal.” Two members of a campaign group have been charged after they poured porridge and jam on a bust of Queen Victoria and spray-painted the word “cunt” on the plinth at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow. Sorcha Ni Mhairtin, 30, and Hannah Taylor, 23 from This Is Rigged carried out the actions around midday on Sunday before reportedly gluing themselves to the plinth. The group said it carried out the act to protest against increasing food insecurity. View image in fullscreen The jam and porridge-covered bust. Photograph: This Is Rigged/PA Ni Mhairtin, an Irish activist and community food worker in Glasgow, said: “We refuse to be dragged back to the Victorian era. Diseases of starvation including scurvy and rickets are on the rise. “Freedom begins with breakfast and if you can’t understand that, we’ll shove it in your face. Food is a human right, and we call out the rotten systems under which we are suffering.” Other stunts the group has carried out this year include occupying the royal dining room at the Palace of Holyroodhouse. This is Rigged has said it will continue to carry out similar actions until its demands are met. They include supermarkets reducing the price of baby formula to March 2021 prices and the Scottish government funding and implementing a community food hub for every 500 households in Scotland. PA Media approached the museum, which declined to comment. A spokesperson from Police Scotland said: “Around 11.55am on Sunday March 3 2024, police were called to a report of a protest and alleged vandalism within Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow. “Two women, aged 23 and 30 years, have been arrested and charged following the incident. They have been released on an undertaking to appear at Glasgow sheriff court at a later date. A report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal.” Two members of a campaign group have been charged after they poured porridge and jam on a bust of Queen Victoria and spray-painted the word “cunt” on the plinth at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum in Glasgow. Sorcha Ni Mhairtin, 30, and Hannah Taylor, 23 from This Is Rigged carried out the actions around midday on Sunday before reportedly gluing themselves to the plinth. The group said it carried out the act to protest against increasing food insecurity. Ni Mhairtin, an Irish activist and community food worker in Glasgow, said: “We refuse to be dragged back to the Victorian era. Diseases of starvation including scurvy and rickets are on the rise. “Freedom begins with breakfast and if you can’t understand that, we’ll shove it in your face. Food is a human right, and we call out the rotten systems under which we are suffering.” Other stunts the group has carried out this year include occupying the royal dining room at the Palace of Holyroodhouse. This is Rigged has said it will continue to carry out similar actions until its demands are met. They include supermarkets reducing the price of baby formula to March 2021 prices and the Scottish government funding and implementing a community food hub for every 500 households in Scotland. PA Media approached the museum, which declined to comment. A spokesperson from Police Scotland said: “Around 11.55am on Sunday March 3 2024, police were called to a report of a protest and alleged vandalism within Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow. “Two women, aged 23 and 30 years, have been arrested and charged following the incident. They have been released on an undertaking to appear at Glasgow sheriff court at a later date. A report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal.” Explore more on these topics UK news Scotland news Share Reuse this content |
No 10 berates Chris Packham for ‘irresponsible’ Just Stop Oil comments
Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA This article is more than 1 year old No 10 berates Chris Packham for ‘irresponsible’ Just Stop Oil comments This article is more than 1 year old BBC presenter defends climate activists’ right to target MPs’ homes amid debate over politicians’ safety UK politics live – latest updates Downing Street has criticised the BBC presenter Chris Packham after he defended Just Stop Oil’s right to protest outside the homes of MPs. Rishi Sunak’s official spokesperson said the police would consider such demonstrations “intimidatory” and use their powers to move on protesters under a policing protocol agreed last week. The prime minister last week claimed that “mob rule” was a threat to the country – but his remarks were rounded on by critics, who said he was deliberately exaggerating the threat, while failing to condemn the inflammatory rhetoric of his own MPs. “A country that only allows you to demonstrate on issues it agrees with is the very definition of authoritarian,” said Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch. “For a government that prides itself as a defender of free speech, it seems this defence is conditional on you agreeing with the government.” Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said Sunak’s messaging was “riddled with hypocrisy and inconsistencies”. Several MPs across the Commons have spoken out about the increase in abuse and threats since the start of the latest conflict in October, with three female MPs understood to have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . Packham, 62, defended the right of environmental activists to target the homes of MPs, as long as their action was “peaceful and non-violent”. “I think that we need a portfolio of protests, basically, because we need a radical flank and Just Stop Oil are seen by many as that radical flank,” he told Times Radio on Monday. “They are the people who in some people’s minds go a step too far. And that might be, you know, standing outside an MP’s house. But the fact is that they are motivated, as I am, by a manifest fear for the health of our future. “The science tells us we have to act. These people are frightened for my future, for your future, for the future of any children they might have. They need to draw attention to this issue.” He added: “If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we in the UK – for all the laws that have been radically changed in very recent times – have to preserve that right to protest. We’ve got a law out there, it needs to be applied equally to everyone.” Packham added that Just Stop Oil “want a rapid just energy transition away from fossil fuels to a healthy, renewable energy system and they need to get that message across, and they’re desperate to do so. So I would support a breadth of protest. “That doesn’t mean that you and I need to go and stand outside MPs houses. I’m taking a legal approach, a perfectly democratic one, which is available to me as a citizen of the UK. But yes, we’re on the same sheet.” Just Stop Oil has already protested outside the homes of Sunak and the Labour leader, Keir Starmer. Last summer, Greenpeace activists climbed on to the roof of the prime minister’s constituency home in Yorkshire in protest at his backing for a big expansion of North Sea drilling. Ministers are considering proposals to limit MPs and councillors from engaging with protest groups and to set up an anti-extremism team within the levelling up department. “It is clearly irresponsible to encourage people to protest at the home addresses of MPs,” Sunak’s official spokesperson said on Monday. “Which is exactly why the democratic policing protocol agreed last week that any protests at the home addresses of MPs would be considered intimidatory and the police will use their powers to direct protesters away from them. “We’ve seen examples, whether it is Tobias Ellwood’s home surrounded by protesters, whether it is other MPs’ constituency offices … about the intimidation their families have suffered. We’ve seen examples that are clearly unacceptable, and it’s right that the public expect the police to tackle this sort of behaviour.” Packham also said on Monday that he had received the green light for a high court legal challenge over the government’s decision to weaken key climate policies. The environmental campaigner has been granted a judicial review of Sunak’s plans to ditch the timetable for phasing out petrol and diesel-powered cars and vans, gas boilers, off-grid fossil fuel domestic heating and minimum energy ratings for homes. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest Chris Packham Rishi Sunak Green politics Police Just Stop Oil news Share Reuse this content Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA This article is more than 1 year old No 10 berates Chris Packham for ‘irresponsible’ Just Stop Oil comments This article is more than 1 year old BBC presenter defends climate activists’ right to target MPs’ homes amid debate over politicians’ safety UK politics live – latest updates Downing Street has criticised the BBC presenter Chris Packham after he defended Just Stop Oil’s right to protest outside the homes of MPs. Rishi Sunak’s official spokesperson said the police would consider such demonstrations “intimidatory” and use their powers to move on protesters under a policing protocol agreed last week. The prime minister last week claimed that “mob rule” was a threat to the country – but his remarks were rounded on by critics, who said he was deliberately exaggerating the threat, while failing to condemn the inflammatory rhetoric of his own MPs. “A country that only allows you to demonstrate on issues it agrees with is the very definition of authoritarian,” said Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch. “For a government that prides itself as a defender of free speech, it seems this defence is conditional on you agreeing with the government.” Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said Sunak’s messaging was “riddled with hypocrisy and inconsistencies”. Several MPs across the Commons have spoken out about the increase in abuse and threats since the start of the latest conflict in October, with three female MPs understood to have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . Packham, 62, defended the right of environmental activists to target the homes of MPs, as long as their action was “peaceful and non-violent”. “I think that we need a portfolio of protests, basically, because we need a radical flank and Just Stop Oil are seen by many as that radical flank,” he told Times Radio on Monday. “They are the people who in some people’s minds go a step too far. And that might be, you know, standing outside an MP’s house. But the fact is that they are motivated, as I am, by a manifest fear for the health of our future. “The science tells us we have to act. These people are frightened for my future, for your future, for the future of any children they might have. They need to draw attention to this issue.” He added: “If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we in the UK – for all the laws that have been radically changed in very recent times – have to preserve that right to protest. We’ve got a law out there, it needs to be applied equally to everyone.” Packham added that Just Stop Oil “want a rapid just energy transition away from fossil fuels to a healthy, renewable energy system and they need to get that message across, and they’re desperate to do so. So I would support a breadth of protest. “That doesn’t mean that you and I need to go and stand outside MPs houses. I’m taking a legal approach, a perfectly democratic one, which is available to me as a citizen of the UK. But yes, we’re on the same sheet.” Just Stop Oil has already protested outside the homes of Sunak and the Labour leader, Keir Starmer. Last summer, Greenpeace activists climbed on to the roof of the prime minister’s constituency home in Yorkshire in protest at his backing for a big expansion of North Sea drilling. Ministers are considering proposals to limit MPs and councillors from engaging with protest groups and to set up an anti-extremism team within the levelling up department. “It is clearly irresponsible to encourage people to protest at the home addresses of MPs,” Sunak’s official spokesperson said on Monday. “Which is exactly why the democratic policing protocol agreed last week that any protests at the home addresses of MPs would be considered intimidatory and the police will use their powers to direct protesters away from them. “We’ve seen examples, whether it is Tobias Ellwood’s home surrounded by protesters, whether it is other MPs’ constituency offices … about the intimidation their families have suffered. We’ve seen examples that are clearly unacceptable, and it’s right that the public expect the police to tackle this sort of behaviour.” Packham also said on Monday that he had received the green light for a high court legal challenge over the government’s decision to weaken key climate policies. The environmental campaigner has been granted a judicial review of Sunak’s plans to ditch the timetable for phasing out petrol and diesel-powered cars and vans, gas boilers, off-grid fossil fuel domestic heating and minimum energy ratings for homes. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest Chris Packham Rishi Sunak Green politics Police Just Stop Oil news Share Reuse this content Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA View image in fullscreen Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA Chris Packham: ‘If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we have to preserve that right to protest.’ Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA This article is more than 1 year old No 10 berates Chris Packham for ‘irresponsible’ Just Stop Oil comments This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old No 10 berates Chris Packham for ‘irresponsible’ Just Stop Oil comments This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old No 10 berates Chris Packham for ‘irresponsible’ Just Stop Oil comments This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old BBC presenter defends climate activists’ right to target MPs’ homes amid debate over politicians’ safety UK politics live – latest updates BBC presenter defends climate activists’ right to target MPs’ homes amid debate over politicians’ safety UK politics live – latest updates BBC presenter defends climate activists’ right to target MPs’ homes amid debate over politicians’ safety Downing Street has criticised the BBC presenter Chris Packham after he defended Just Stop Oil’s right to protest outside the homes of MPs. Rishi Sunak’s official spokesperson said the police would consider such demonstrations “intimidatory” and use their powers to move on protesters under a policing protocol agreed last week. The prime minister last week claimed that “mob rule” was a threat to the country – but his remarks were rounded on by critics, who said he was deliberately exaggerating the threat, while failing to condemn the inflammatory rhetoric of his own MPs. “A country that only allows you to demonstrate on issues it agrees with is the very definition of authoritarian,” said Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch. “For a government that prides itself as a defender of free speech, it seems this defence is conditional on you agreeing with the government.” Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said Sunak’s messaging was “riddled with hypocrisy and inconsistencies”. Several MPs across the Commons have spoken out about the increase in abuse and threats since the start of the latest conflict in October, with three female MPs understood to have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . Packham, 62, defended the right of environmental activists to target the homes of MPs, as long as their action was “peaceful and non-violent”. “I think that we need a portfolio of protests, basically, because we need a radical flank and Just Stop Oil are seen by many as that radical flank,” he told Times Radio on Monday. “They are the people who in some people’s minds go a step too far. And that might be, you know, standing outside an MP’s house. But the fact is that they are motivated, as I am, by a manifest fear for the health of our future. “The science tells us we have to act. These people are frightened for my future, for your future, for the future of any children they might have. They need to draw attention to this issue.” He added: “If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we in the UK – for all the laws that have been radically changed in very recent times – have to preserve that right to protest. We’ve got a law out there, it needs to be applied equally to everyone.” Packham added that Just Stop Oil “want a rapid just energy transition away from fossil fuels to a healthy, renewable energy system and they need to get that message across, and they’re desperate to do so. So I would support a breadth of protest. “That doesn’t mean that you and I need to go and stand outside MPs houses. I’m taking a legal approach, a perfectly democratic one, which is available to me as a citizen of the UK. But yes, we’re on the same sheet.” Just Stop Oil has already protested outside the homes of Sunak and the Labour leader, Keir Starmer. Last summer, Greenpeace activists climbed on to the roof of the prime minister’s constituency home in Yorkshire in protest at his backing for a big expansion of North Sea drilling. Ministers are considering proposals to limit MPs and councillors from engaging with protest groups and to set up an anti-extremism team within the levelling up department. “It is clearly irresponsible to encourage people to protest at the home addresses of MPs,” Sunak’s official spokesperson said on Monday. “Which is exactly why the democratic policing protocol agreed last week that any protests at the home addresses of MPs would be considered intimidatory and the police will use their powers to direct protesters away from them. “We’ve seen examples, whether it is Tobias Ellwood’s home surrounded by protesters, whether it is other MPs’ constituency offices … about the intimidation their families have suffered. We’ve seen examples that are clearly unacceptable, and it’s right that the public expect the police to tackle this sort of behaviour.” Packham also said on Monday that he had received the green light for a high court legal challenge over the government’s decision to weaken key climate policies. The environmental campaigner has been granted a judicial review of Sunak’s plans to ditch the timetable for phasing out petrol and diesel-powered cars and vans, gas boilers, off-grid fossil fuel domestic heating and minimum energy ratings for homes. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest Chris Packham Rishi Sunak Green politics Police Just Stop Oil news Share Reuse this content Downing Street has criticised the BBC presenter Chris Packham after he defended Just Stop Oil’s right to protest outside the homes of MPs. Rishi Sunak’s official spokesperson said the police would consider such demonstrations “intimidatory” and use their powers to move on protesters under a policing protocol agreed last week. The prime minister last week claimed that “mob rule” was a threat to the country – but his remarks were rounded on by critics, who said he was deliberately exaggerating the threat, while failing to condemn the inflammatory rhetoric of his own MPs. “A country that only allows you to demonstrate on issues it agrees with is the very definition of authoritarian,” said Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch. “For a government that prides itself as a defender of free speech, it seems this defence is conditional on you agreeing with the government.” Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said Sunak’s messaging was “riddled with hypocrisy and inconsistencies”. Several MPs across the Commons have spoken out about the increase in abuse and threats since the start of the latest conflict in October, with three female MPs understood to have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . Packham, 62, defended the right of environmental activists to target the homes of MPs, as long as their action was “peaceful and non-violent”. “I think that we need a portfolio of protests, basically, because we need a radical flank and Just Stop Oil are seen by many as that radical flank,” he told Times Radio on Monday. “They are the people who in some people’s minds go a step too far. And that might be, you know, standing outside an MP’s house. But the fact is that they are motivated, as I am, by a manifest fear for the health of our future. “The science tells us we have to act. These people are frightened for my future, for your future, for the future of any children they might have. They need to draw attention to this issue.” He added: “If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we in the UK – for all the laws that have been radically changed in very recent times – have to preserve that right to protest. We’ve got a law out there, it needs to be applied equally to everyone.” Packham added that Just Stop Oil “want a rapid just energy transition away from fossil fuels to a healthy, renewable energy system and they need to get that message across, and they’re desperate to do so. So I would support a breadth of protest. “That doesn’t mean that you and I need to go and stand outside MPs houses. I’m taking a legal approach, a perfectly democratic one, which is available to me as a citizen of the UK. But yes, we’re on the same sheet.” Just Stop Oil has already protested outside the homes of Sunak and the Labour leader, Keir Starmer. Last summer, Greenpeace activists climbed on to the roof of the prime minister’s constituency home in Yorkshire in protest at his backing for a big expansion of North Sea drilling. Ministers are considering proposals to limit MPs and councillors from engaging with protest groups and to set up an anti-extremism team within the levelling up department. “It is clearly irresponsible to encourage people to protest at the home addresses of MPs,” Sunak’s official spokesperson said on Monday. “Which is exactly why the democratic policing protocol agreed last week that any protests at the home addresses of MPs would be considered intimidatory and the police will use their powers to direct protesters away from them. “We’ve seen examples, whether it is Tobias Ellwood’s home surrounded by protesters, whether it is other MPs’ constituency offices … about the intimidation their families have suffered. We’ve seen examples that are clearly unacceptable, and it’s right that the public expect the police to tackle this sort of behaviour.” Packham also said on Monday that he had received the green light for a high court legal challenge over the government’s decision to weaken key climate policies. The environmental campaigner has been granted a judicial review of Sunak’s plans to ditch the timetable for phasing out petrol and diesel-powered cars and vans, gas boilers, off-grid fossil fuel domestic heating and minimum energy ratings for homes. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest Chris Packham Rishi Sunak Green politics Police Just Stop Oil news Share Reuse this content Downing Street has criticised the BBC presenter Chris Packham after he defended Just Stop Oil’s right to protest outside the homes of MPs. Rishi Sunak’s official spokesperson said the police would consider such demonstrations “intimidatory” and use their powers to move on protesters under a policing protocol agreed last week. The prime minister last week claimed that “mob rule” was a threat to the country – but his remarks were rounded on by critics, who said he was deliberately exaggerating the threat, while failing to condemn the inflammatory rhetoric of his own MPs. “A country that only allows you to demonstrate on issues it agrees with is the very definition of authoritarian,” said Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch. “For a government that prides itself as a defender of free speech, it seems this defence is conditional on you agreeing with the government.” Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said Sunak’s messaging was “riddled with hypocrisy and inconsistencies”. Several MPs across the Commons have spoken out about the increase in abuse and threats since the start of the latest conflict in October, with three female MPs understood to have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . Packham, 62, defended the right of environmental activists to target the homes of MPs, as long as their action was “peaceful and non-violent”. “I think that we need a portfolio of protests, basically, because we need a radical flank and Just Stop Oil are seen by many as that radical flank,” he told Times Radio on Monday. “They are the people who in some people’s minds go a step too far. And that might be, you know, standing outside an MP’s house. But the fact is that they are motivated, as I am, by a manifest fear for the health of our future. “The science tells us we have to act. These people are frightened for my future, for your future, for the future of any children they might have. They need to draw attention to this issue.” He added: “If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we in the UK – for all the laws that have been radically changed in very recent times – have to preserve that right to protest. We’ve got a law out there, it needs to be applied equally to everyone.” Packham added that Just Stop Oil “want a rapid just energy transition away from fossil fuels to a healthy, renewable energy system and they need to get that message across, and they’re desperate to do so. So I would support a breadth of protest. “That doesn’t mean that you and I need to go and stand outside MPs houses. I’m taking a legal approach, a perfectly democratic one, which is available to me as a citizen of the UK. But yes, we’re on the same sheet.” Just Stop Oil has already protested outside the homes of Sunak and the Labour leader, Keir Starmer. Last summer, Greenpeace activists climbed on to the roof of the prime minister’s constituency home in Yorkshire in protest at his backing for a big expansion of North Sea drilling. Ministers are considering proposals to limit MPs and councillors from engaging with protest groups and to set up an anti-extremism team within the levelling up department. “It is clearly irresponsible to encourage people to protest at the home addresses of MPs,” Sunak’s official spokesperson said on Monday. “Which is exactly why the democratic policing protocol agreed last week that any protests at the home addresses of MPs would be considered intimidatory and the police will use their powers to direct protesters away from them. “We’ve seen examples, whether it is Tobias Ellwood’s home surrounded by protesters, whether it is other MPs’ constituency offices … about the intimidation their families have suffered. We’ve seen examples that are clearly unacceptable, and it’s right that the public expect the police to tackle this sort of behaviour.” Packham also said on Monday that he had received the green light for a high court legal challenge over the government’s decision to weaken key climate policies. The environmental campaigner has been granted a judicial review of Sunak’s plans to ditch the timetable for phasing out petrol and diesel-powered cars and vans, gas boilers, off-grid fossil fuel domestic heating and minimum energy ratings for homes. Downing Street has criticised the BBC presenter Chris Packham after he defended Just Stop Oil’s right to protest outside the homes of MPs. Rishi Sunak’s official spokesperson said the police would consider such demonstrations “intimidatory” and use their powers to move on protesters under a policing protocol agreed last week. The prime minister last week claimed that “mob rule” was a threat to the country – but his remarks were rounded on by critics, who said he was deliberately exaggerating the threat, while failing to condemn the inflammatory rhetoric of his own MPs. “A country that only allows you to demonstrate on issues it agrees with is the very definition of authoritarian,” said Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch. “For a government that prides itself as a defender of free speech, it seems this defence is conditional on you agreeing with the government.” Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said Sunak’s messaging was “riddled with hypocrisy and inconsistencies”. Several MPs across the Commons have spoken out about the increase in abuse and threats since the start of the latest conflict in October, with three female MPs understood to have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . Packham, 62, defended the right of environmental activists to target the homes of MPs, as long as their action was “peaceful and non-violent”. “I think that we need a portfolio of protests, basically, because we need a radical flank and Just Stop Oil are seen by many as that radical flank,” he told Times Radio on Monday. “They are the people who in some people’s minds go a step too far. And that might be, you know, standing outside an MP’s house. But the fact is that they are motivated, as I am, by a manifest fear for the health of our future. “The science tells us we have to act. These people are frightened for my future, for your future, for the future of any children they might have. They need to draw attention to this issue.” He added: “If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we in the UK – for all the laws that have been radically changed in very recent times – have to preserve that right to protest. We’ve got a law out there, it needs to be applied equally to everyone.” Packham added that Just Stop Oil “want a rapid just energy transition away from fossil fuels to a healthy, renewable energy system and they need to get that message across, and they’re desperate to do so. So I would support a breadth of protest. “That doesn’t mean that you and I need to go and stand outside MPs houses. I’m taking a legal approach, a perfectly democratic one, which is available to me as a citizen of the UK. But yes, we’re on the same sheet.” Just Stop Oil has already protested outside the homes of Sunak and the Labour leader, Keir Starmer. Last summer, Greenpeace activists climbed on to the roof of the prime minister’s constituency home in Yorkshire in protest at his backing for a big expansion of North Sea drilling. Ministers are considering proposals to limit MPs and councillors from engaging with protest groups and to set up an anti-extremism team within the levelling up department. “It is clearly irresponsible to encourage people to protest at the home addresses of MPs,” Sunak’s official spokesperson said on Monday. “Which is exactly why the democratic policing protocol agreed last week that any protests at the home addresses of MPs would be considered intimidatory and the police will use their powers to direct protesters away from them. “We’ve seen examples, whether it is Tobias Ellwood’s home surrounded by protesters, whether it is other MPs’ constituency offices … about the intimidation their families have suffered. We’ve seen examples that are clearly unacceptable, and it’s right that the public expect the police to tackle this sort of behaviour.” Packham also said on Monday that he had received the green light for a high court legal challenge over the government’s decision to weaken key climate policies. The environmental campaigner has been granted a judicial review of Sunak’s plans to ditch the timetable for phasing out petrol and diesel-powered cars and vans, gas boilers, off-grid fossil fuel domestic heating and minimum energy ratings for homes. Downing Street has criticised the BBC presenter Chris Packham after he defended Just Stop Oil’s right to protest outside the homes of MPs. Rishi Sunak’s official spokesperson said the police would consider such demonstrations “intimidatory” and use their powers to move on protesters under a policing protocol agreed last week. The prime minister last week claimed that “mob rule” was a threat to the country – but his remarks were rounded on by critics, who said he was deliberately exaggerating the threat, while failing to condemn the inflammatory rhetoric of his own MPs. “A country that only allows you to demonstrate on issues it agrees with is the very definition of authoritarian,” said Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director of Human Rights Watch. “For a government that prides itself as a defender of free speech, it seems this defence is conditional on you agreeing with the government.” Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said Sunak’s messaging was “riddled with hypocrisy and inconsistencies”. Several MPs across the Commons have spoken out about the increase in abuse and threats since the start of the latest conflict in October, with three female MPs understood to have been given taxpayer-funded bodyguards and cars . Packham, 62, defended the right of environmental activists to target the homes of MPs, as long as their action was “peaceful and non-violent”. “I think that we need a portfolio of protests, basically, because we need a radical flank and Just Stop Oil are seen by many as that radical flank,” he told Times Radio on Monday. “They are the people who in some people’s minds go a step too far. And that might be, you know, standing outside an MP’s house. But the fact is that they are motivated, as I am, by a manifest fear for the health of our future. “The science tells us we have to act. These people are frightened for my future, for your future, for the future of any children they might have. They need to draw attention to this issue.” He added: “If this is a peaceful, non-violent demonstration then we in the UK – for all the laws that have been radically changed in very recent times – have to preserve that right to protest. We’ve got a law out there, it needs to be applied equally to everyone.” Packham added that Just Stop Oil “want a rapid just energy transition away from fossil fuels to a healthy, renewable energy system and they need to get that message across, and they’re desperate to do so. So I would support a breadth of protest. “That doesn’t mean that you and I need to go and stand outside MPs houses. I’m taking a legal approach, a perfectly democratic one, which is available to me as a citizen of the UK. But yes, we’re on the same sheet.” Just Stop Oil has already protested outside the homes of Sunak and the Labour leader, Keir Starmer. Last summer, Greenpeace activists climbed on to the roof of the prime minister’s constituency home in Yorkshire in protest at his backing for a big expansion of North Sea drilling. Ministers are considering proposals to limit MPs and councillors from engaging with protest groups and to set up an anti-extremism team within the levelling up department. “It is clearly irresponsible to encourage people to protest at the home addresses of MPs,” Sunak’s official spokesperson said on Monday. “Which is exactly why the democratic policing protocol agreed last week that any protests at the home addresses of MPs would be considered intimidatory and the police will use their powers to direct protesters away from them. “We’ve seen examples, whether it is Tobias Ellwood’s home surrounded by protesters, whether it is other MPs’ constituency offices … about the intimidation their families have suffered. We’ve seen examples that are clearly unacceptable, and it’s right that the public expect the police to tackle this sort of behaviour.” Packham also said on Monday that he had received the green light for a high court legal challenge over the government’s decision to weaken key climate policies. The environmental campaigner has been granted a judicial review of Sunak’s plans to ditch the timetable for phasing out petrol and diesel-powered cars and vans, gas boilers, off-grid fossil fuel domestic heating and minimum energy ratings for homes. Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest Chris Packham Rishi Sunak Green politics Police Just Stop Oil news Share Reuse this content Environmental activism Protest Chris Packham Rishi Sunak Green politics Police Just Stop Oil news |
A Tory party that stokes hatred is the real threat to our democracy
‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Letters A Tory party that stokes hatred is the real threat to our democracy This article is more than 1 year old Readers respond to Rishi Sunak’s speech on how extremism has taken hold in Britain I totally agree with Caroline Lucas’s condemnation of Rishi Sunak’s nauseating speech on Friday ( ‘I’m still reeling from Rishi Sunak’s shameless, dangerous speech’, 3 March ). Sunak’s hypocrisy was breathtaking, even by this government’s low standards. No one has done more to promote division and intolerance than the Conservatives, or to demonise and insult those they dislike or disagree with. Since 2010, we have seen the Home Office hire a fleet of vans telling immigrants to “ go home ”, heard the unemployed described as skivers not strivers, homelessness described as “ a lifestyle choice ”, opponents of Brexit portrayed as unpatriotic or ridiculed as “remoaners”, rightwing vigilantes vandalising Ulez cameras in London defended , and senior Conservatives recently insulting the Muslim (Labour) mayor of London. Meanwhile, young people are routinely derided as snowflakes, while anyone who believes in social justice or basic human decency is sneered at for being woke. All of this while ministers, claiming to be defenders of free speech against cancel culture, introduce voter ID laws (calculating that citizens who are less likely to vote Conservative will also be less likely to have official ID), curb the rights to protest and strike, try to bully the BBC into becoming a government mouthpiece and regularly demand the scrapping of human rights legislation . If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror. Pete Dorey Bath I felt a tingle of excitement when Rishi Sunak’s impromptu press conference was announced ( Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech, 1 March ). I thought that someone in No 10 had a sense of history, and wanted to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the “Who governs Britain?” election, as a prelude to an announcement that we would get a chance to answer that same question next month. But I soon realised that I was as deluded as cabinet members seem to be about the state we’re in. It’s a bit late for Sunak to start hand-wringing, either as a response to democracy having thrown up a result that he doesn’t like or as faux concern at the tone of modern political discourse. We are not experiencing “mob rule”, but those with power have provoked and stoked anger, disillusionment and disengagement. Unlawfully suspending parliament, and then briefing against members of the judiciary as “ enemies of the people ” when they delivered their verdict, have been a more serious assault on democracy than the chanting of any slogans. Les Bright Exeter I’m concerned at the use of the word “insurgent” to describe two individuals who have stood in a byelection to be democratically elected as a member of parliament ( Report, 1 March ). While George Galloway’s views may not be to everyone’s taste, his and David Tully’s success in Rochdale reflects a dissatisfaction with the government and opposition rather than the violence and struggle that this word implies. On the day that the front page read “Democracy is at threat from ‘extremists’, claims Sunak”, we needed the Guardian to tread a less inflammatory line. Matthew Clark Hadlow, Kent Marina Hyde’s article explains why many voters such as myself will vote in the coming election out of a sense of duty, not enthusiasm ( Look at the political hellscape of Sunak, Anderson, even Starmer and ask: are they making my life any better?, 27 February ). There seems to be no depth to which these politicians won’t go to get down with the people. Even the opposition hesitates to call out such behaviour, for fear of alienating “key voters”. What it reveals is the contempt with which politicians view the electorate. Do they really think “red wall” voters are enthused more by appeals to misogyny and Islamophobia, than by fixing their broken schools and hospitals? Research shows that low-income voters in multi-ethnic areas are more relaxed about having Muslim neighbours than those of the higher income groups, who are less likely to mix socially with other ethnic groups. Is the truth of the matter that it is the latter group to whom Lee Anderson appeals. As for misogyny, is it not a case of Tory MPs thinking that most low-income male voters have the same misogynistic attitudes they hold. I suspect that any survey of male Tory MPs would demonstrate a higher levels of Islamophobia, sexism and misogyny than is current in the nation as a whole. The sad truth is that most of us have little in common with these Tory MPs. Derrick Joad Leeds Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak George Galloway Byelections Protest Race letters Share Reuse this content ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Letters A Tory party that stokes hatred is the real threat to our democracy This article is more than 1 year old Readers respond to Rishi Sunak’s speech on how extremism has taken hold in Britain I totally agree with Caroline Lucas’s condemnation of Rishi Sunak’s nauseating speech on Friday ( ‘I’m still reeling from Rishi Sunak’s shameless, dangerous speech’, 3 March ). Sunak’s hypocrisy was breathtaking, even by this government’s low standards. No one has done more to promote division and intolerance than the Conservatives, or to demonise and insult those they dislike or disagree with. Since 2010, we have seen the Home Office hire a fleet of vans telling immigrants to “ go home ”, heard the unemployed described as skivers not strivers, homelessness described as “ a lifestyle choice ”, opponents of Brexit portrayed as unpatriotic or ridiculed as “remoaners”, rightwing vigilantes vandalising Ulez cameras in London defended , and senior Conservatives recently insulting the Muslim (Labour) mayor of London. Meanwhile, young people are routinely derided as snowflakes, while anyone who believes in social justice or basic human decency is sneered at for being woke. All of this while ministers, claiming to be defenders of free speech against cancel culture, introduce voter ID laws (calculating that citizens who are less likely to vote Conservative will also be less likely to have official ID), curb the rights to protest and strike, try to bully the BBC into becoming a government mouthpiece and regularly demand the scrapping of human rights legislation . If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror. Pete Dorey Bath I felt a tingle of excitement when Rishi Sunak’s impromptu press conference was announced ( Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech, 1 March ). I thought that someone in No 10 had a sense of history, and wanted to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the “Who governs Britain?” election, as a prelude to an announcement that we would get a chance to answer that same question next month. But I soon realised that I was as deluded as cabinet members seem to be about the state we’re in. It’s a bit late for Sunak to start hand-wringing, either as a response to democracy having thrown up a result that he doesn’t like or as faux concern at the tone of modern political discourse. We are not experiencing “mob rule”, but those with power have provoked and stoked anger, disillusionment and disengagement. Unlawfully suspending parliament, and then briefing against members of the judiciary as “ enemies of the people ” when they delivered their verdict, have been a more serious assault on democracy than the chanting of any slogans. Les Bright Exeter I’m concerned at the use of the word “insurgent” to describe two individuals who have stood in a byelection to be democratically elected as a member of parliament ( Report, 1 March ). While George Galloway’s views may not be to everyone’s taste, his and David Tully’s success in Rochdale reflects a dissatisfaction with the government and opposition rather than the violence and struggle that this word implies. On the day that the front page read “Democracy is at threat from ‘extremists’, claims Sunak”, we needed the Guardian to tread a less inflammatory line. Matthew Clark Hadlow, Kent Marina Hyde’s article explains why many voters such as myself will vote in the coming election out of a sense of duty, not enthusiasm ( Look at the political hellscape of Sunak, Anderson, even Starmer and ask: are they making my life any better?, 27 February ). There seems to be no depth to which these politicians won’t go to get down with the people. Even the opposition hesitates to call out such behaviour, for fear of alienating “key voters”. What it reveals is the contempt with which politicians view the electorate. Do they really think “red wall” voters are enthused more by appeals to misogyny and Islamophobia, than by fixing their broken schools and hospitals? Research shows that low-income voters in multi-ethnic areas are more relaxed about having Muslim neighbours than those of the higher income groups, who are less likely to mix socially with other ethnic groups. Is the truth of the matter that it is the latter group to whom Lee Anderson appeals. As for misogyny, is it not a case of Tory MPs thinking that most low-income male voters have the same misogynistic attitudes they hold. I suspect that any survey of male Tory MPs would demonstrate a higher levels of Islamophobia, sexism and misogyny than is current in the nation as a whole. The sad truth is that most of us have little in common with these Tory MPs. Derrick Joad Leeds Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak George Galloway Byelections Protest Race letters Share Reuse this content ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images ‘If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Letters A Tory party that stokes hatred is the real threat to our democracy This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Letters A Tory party that stokes hatred is the real threat to our democracy This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Letters A Tory party that stokes hatred is the real threat to our democracy This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Letters A Tory party that stokes hatred is the real threat to our democracy This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Readers respond to Rishi Sunak’s speech on how extremism has taken hold in Britain Readers respond to Rishi Sunak’s speech on how extremism has taken hold in Britain Readers respond to Rishi Sunak’s speech on how extremism has taken hold in Britain I totally agree with Caroline Lucas’s condemnation of Rishi Sunak’s nauseating speech on Friday ( ‘I’m still reeling from Rishi Sunak’s shameless, dangerous speech’, 3 March ). Sunak’s hypocrisy was breathtaking, even by this government’s low standards. No one has done more to promote division and intolerance than the Conservatives, or to demonise and insult those they dislike or disagree with. Since 2010, we have seen the Home Office hire a fleet of vans telling immigrants to “ go home ”, heard the unemployed described as skivers not strivers, homelessness described as “ a lifestyle choice ”, opponents of Brexit portrayed as unpatriotic or ridiculed as “remoaners”, rightwing vigilantes vandalising Ulez cameras in London defended , and senior Conservatives recently insulting the Muslim (Labour) mayor of London. Meanwhile, young people are routinely derided as snowflakes, while anyone who believes in social justice or basic human decency is sneered at for being woke. All of this while ministers, claiming to be defenders of free speech against cancel culture, introduce voter ID laws (calculating that citizens who are less likely to vote Conservative will also be less likely to have official ID), curb the rights to protest and strike, try to bully the BBC into becoming a government mouthpiece and regularly demand the scrapping of human rights legislation . If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror. Pete Dorey Bath I felt a tingle of excitement when Rishi Sunak’s impromptu press conference was announced ( Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech, 1 March ). I thought that someone in No 10 had a sense of history, and wanted to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the “Who governs Britain?” election, as a prelude to an announcement that we would get a chance to answer that same question next month. But I soon realised that I was as deluded as cabinet members seem to be about the state we’re in. It’s a bit late for Sunak to start hand-wringing, either as a response to democracy having thrown up a result that he doesn’t like or as faux concern at the tone of modern political discourse. We are not experiencing “mob rule”, but those with power have provoked and stoked anger, disillusionment and disengagement. Unlawfully suspending parliament, and then briefing against members of the judiciary as “ enemies of the people ” when they delivered their verdict, have been a more serious assault on democracy than the chanting of any slogans. Les Bright Exeter I’m concerned at the use of the word “insurgent” to describe two individuals who have stood in a byelection to be democratically elected as a member of parliament ( Report, 1 March ). While George Galloway’s views may not be to everyone’s taste, his and David Tully’s success in Rochdale reflects a dissatisfaction with the government and opposition rather than the violence and struggle that this word implies. On the day that the front page read “Democracy is at threat from ‘extremists’, claims Sunak”, we needed the Guardian to tread a less inflammatory line. Matthew Clark Hadlow, Kent Marina Hyde’s article explains why many voters such as myself will vote in the coming election out of a sense of duty, not enthusiasm ( Look at the political hellscape of Sunak, Anderson, even Starmer and ask: are they making my life any better?, 27 February ). There seems to be no depth to which these politicians won’t go to get down with the people. Even the opposition hesitates to call out such behaviour, for fear of alienating “key voters”. What it reveals is the contempt with which politicians view the electorate. Do they really think “red wall” voters are enthused more by appeals to misogyny and Islamophobia, than by fixing their broken schools and hospitals? Research shows that low-income voters in multi-ethnic areas are more relaxed about having Muslim neighbours than those of the higher income groups, who are less likely to mix socially with other ethnic groups. Is the truth of the matter that it is the latter group to whom Lee Anderson appeals. As for misogyny, is it not a case of Tory MPs thinking that most low-income male voters have the same misogynistic attitudes they hold. I suspect that any survey of male Tory MPs would demonstrate a higher levels of Islamophobia, sexism and misogyny than is current in the nation as a whole. The sad truth is that most of us have little in common with these Tory MPs. Derrick Joad Leeds Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak George Galloway Byelections Protest Race letters Share Reuse this content I totally agree with Caroline Lucas’s condemnation of Rishi Sunak’s nauseating speech on Friday ( ‘I’m still reeling from Rishi Sunak’s shameless, dangerous speech’, 3 March ). Sunak’s hypocrisy was breathtaking, even by this government’s low standards. No one has done more to promote division and intolerance than the Conservatives, or to demonise and insult those they dislike or disagree with. Since 2010, we have seen the Home Office hire a fleet of vans telling immigrants to “ go home ”, heard the unemployed described as skivers not strivers, homelessness described as “ a lifestyle choice ”, opponents of Brexit portrayed as unpatriotic or ridiculed as “remoaners”, rightwing vigilantes vandalising Ulez cameras in London defended , and senior Conservatives recently insulting the Muslim (Labour) mayor of London. Meanwhile, young people are routinely derided as snowflakes, while anyone who believes in social justice or basic human decency is sneered at for being woke. All of this while ministers, claiming to be defenders of free speech against cancel culture, introduce voter ID laws (calculating that citizens who are less likely to vote Conservative will also be less likely to have official ID), curb the rights to protest and strike, try to bully the BBC into becoming a government mouthpiece and regularly demand the scrapping of human rights legislation . If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror. Pete Dorey Bath I felt a tingle of excitement when Rishi Sunak’s impromptu press conference was announced ( Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech, 1 March ). I thought that someone in No 10 had a sense of history, and wanted to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the “Who governs Britain?” election, as a prelude to an announcement that we would get a chance to answer that same question next month. But I soon realised that I was as deluded as cabinet members seem to be about the state we’re in. It’s a bit late for Sunak to start hand-wringing, either as a response to democracy having thrown up a result that he doesn’t like or as faux concern at the tone of modern political discourse. We are not experiencing “mob rule”, but those with power have provoked and stoked anger, disillusionment and disengagement. Unlawfully suspending parliament, and then briefing against members of the judiciary as “ enemies of the people ” when they delivered their verdict, have been a more serious assault on democracy than the chanting of any slogans. Les Bright Exeter I’m concerned at the use of the word “insurgent” to describe two individuals who have stood in a byelection to be democratically elected as a member of parliament ( Report, 1 March ). While George Galloway’s views may not be to everyone’s taste, his and David Tully’s success in Rochdale reflects a dissatisfaction with the government and opposition rather than the violence and struggle that this word implies. On the day that the front page read “Democracy is at threat from ‘extremists’, claims Sunak”, we needed the Guardian to tread a less inflammatory line. Matthew Clark Hadlow, Kent Marina Hyde’s article explains why many voters such as myself will vote in the coming election out of a sense of duty, not enthusiasm ( Look at the political hellscape of Sunak, Anderson, even Starmer and ask: are they making my life any better?, 27 February ). There seems to be no depth to which these politicians won’t go to get down with the people. Even the opposition hesitates to call out such behaviour, for fear of alienating “key voters”. What it reveals is the contempt with which politicians view the electorate. Do they really think “red wall” voters are enthused more by appeals to misogyny and Islamophobia, than by fixing their broken schools and hospitals? Research shows that low-income voters in multi-ethnic areas are more relaxed about having Muslim neighbours than those of the higher income groups, who are less likely to mix socially with other ethnic groups. Is the truth of the matter that it is the latter group to whom Lee Anderson appeals. As for misogyny, is it not a case of Tory MPs thinking that most low-income male voters have the same misogynistic attitudes they hold. I suspect that any survey of male Tory MPs would demonstrate a higher levels of Islamophobia, sexism and misogyny than is current in the nation as a whole. The sad truth is that most of us have little in common with these Tory MPs. Derrick Joad Leeds Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak George Galloway Byelections Protest Race letters Share Reuse this content I totally agree with Caroline Lucas’s condemnation of Rishi Sunak’s nauseating speech on Friday ( ‘I’m still reeling from Rishi Sunak’s shameless, dangerous speech’, 3 March ). Sunak’s hypocrisy was breathtaking, even by this government’s low standards. No one has done more to promote division and intolerance than the Conservatives, or to demonise and insult those they dislike or disagree with. Since 2010, we have seen the Home Office hire a fleet of vans telling immigrants to “ go home ”, heard the unemployed described as skivers not strivers, homelessness described as “ a lifestyle choice ”, opponents of Brexit portrayed as unpatriotic or ridiculed as “remoaners”, rightwing vigilantes vandalising Ulez cameras in London defended , and senior Conservatives recently insulting the Muslim (Labour) mayor of London. Meanwhile, young people are routinely derided as snowflakes, while anyone who believes in social justice or basic human decency is sneered at for being woke. All of this while ministers, claiming to be defenders of free speech against cancel culture, introduce voter ID laws (calculating that citizens who are less likely to vote Conservative will also be less likely to have official ID), curb the rights to protest and strike, try to bully the BBC into becoming a government mouthpiece and regularly demand the scrapping of human rights legislation . If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror. Pete Dorey Bath I felt a tingle of excitement when Rishi Sunak’s impromptu press conference was announced ( Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech, 1 March ). I thought that someone in No 10 had a sense of history, and wanted to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the “Who governs Britain?” election, as a prelude to an announcement that we would get a chance to answer that same question next month. But I soon realised that I was as deluded as cabinet members seem to be about the state we’re in. It’s a bit late for Sunak to start hand-wringing, either as a response to democracy having thrown up a result that he doesn’t like or as faux concern at the tone of modern political discourse. We are not experiencing “mob rule”, but those with power have provoked and stoked anger, disillusionment and disengagement. Unlawfully suspending parliament, and then briefing against members of the judiciary as “ enemies of the people ” when they delivered their verdict, have been a more serious assault on democracy than the chanting of any slogans. Les Bright Exeter I’m concerned at the use of the word “insurgent” to describe two individuals who have stood in a byelection to be democratically elected as a member of parliament ( Report, 1 March ). While George Galloway’s views may not be to everyone’s taste, his and David Tully’s success in Rochdale reflects a dissatisfaction with the government and opposition rather than the violence and struggle that this word implies. On the day that the front page read “Democracy is at threat from ‘extremists’, claims Sunak”, we needed the Guardian to tread a less inflammatory line. Matthew Clark Hadlow, Kent Marina Hyde’s article explains why many voters such as myself will vote in the coming election out of a sense of duty, not enthusiasm ( Look at the political hellscape of Sunak, Anderson, even Starmer and ask: are they making my life any better?, 27 February ). There seems to be no depth to which these politicians won’t go to get down with the people. Even the opposition hesitates to call out such behaviour, for fear of alienating “key voters”. What it reveals is the contempt with which politicians view the electorate. Do they really think “red wall” voters are enthused more by appeals to misogyny and Islamophobia, than by fixing their broken schools and hospitals? Research shows that low-income voters in multi-ethnic areas are more relaxed about having Muslim neighbours than those of the higher income groups, who are less likely to mix socially with other ethnic groups. Is the truth of the matter that it is the latter group to whom Lee Anderson appeals. As for misogyny, is it not a case of Tory MPs thinking that most low-income male voters have the same misogynistic attitudes they hold. I suspect that any survey of male Tory MPs would demonstrate a higher levels of Islamophobia, sexism and misogyny than is current in the nation as a whole. The sad truth is that most of us have little in common with these Tory MPs. Derrick Joad Leeds Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak George Galloway Byelections Protest Race letters Share Reuse this content I totally agree with Caroline Lucas’s condemnation of Rishi Sunak’s nauseating speech on Friday ( ‘I’m still reeling from Rishi Sunak’s shameless, dangerous speech’, 3 March ). Sunak’s hypocrisy was breathtaking, even by this government’s low standards. No one has done more to promote division and intolerance than the Conservatives, or to demonise and insult those they dislike or disagree with. Since 2010, we have seen the Home Office hire a fleet of vans telling immigrants to “ go home ”, heard the unemployed described as skivers not strivers, homelessness described as “ a lifestyle choice ”, opponents of Brexit portrayed as unpatriotic or ridiculed as “remoaners”, rightwing vigilantes vandalising Ulez cameras in London defended , and senior Conservatives recently insulting the Muslim (Labour) mayor of London. Meanwhile, young people are routinely derided as snowflakes, while anyone who believes in social justice or basic human decency is sneered at for being woke. All of this while ministers, claiming to be defenders of free speech against cancel culture, introduce voter ID laws (calculating that citizens who are less likely to vote Conservative will also be less likely to have official ID), curb the rights to protest and strike, try to bully the BBC into becoming a government mouthpiece and regularly demand the scrapping of human rights legislation . If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror. Pete Dorey Bath I felt a tingle of excitement when Rishi Sunak’s impromptu press conference was announced ( Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech, 1 March ). I thought that someone in No 10 had a sense of history, and wanted to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the “Who governs Britain?” election, as a prelude to an announcement that we would get a chance to answer that same question next month. But I soon realised that I was as deluded as cabinet members seem to be about the state we’re in. It’s a bit late for Sunak to start hand-wringing, either as a response to democracy having thrown up a result that he doesn’t like or as faux concern at the tone of modern political discourse. We are not experiencing “mob rule”, but those with power have provoked and stoked anger, disillusionment and disengagement. Unlawfully suspending parliament, and then briefing against members of the judiciary as “ enemies of the people ” when they delivered their verdict, have been a more serious assault on democracy than the chanting of any slogans. Les Bright Exeter I’m concerned at the use of the word “insurgent” to describe two individuals who have stood in a byelection to be democratically elected as a member of parliament ( Report, 1 March ). While George Galloway’s views may not be to everyone’s taste, his and David Tully’s success in Rochdale reflects a dissatisfaction with the government and opposition rather than the violence and struggle that this word implies. On the day that the front page read “Democracy is at threat from ‘extremists’, claims Sunak”, we needed the Guardian to tread a less inflammatory line. Matthew Clark Hadlow, Kent Marina Hyde’s article explains why many voters such as myself will vote in the coming election out of a sense of duty, not enthusiasm ( Look at the political hellscape of Sunak, Anderson, even Starmer and ask: are they making my life any better?, 27 February ). There seems to be no depth to which these politicians won’t go to get down with the people. Even the opposition hesitates to call out such behaviour, for fear of alienating “key voters”. What it reveals is the contempt with which politicians view the electorate. Do they really think “red wall” voters are enthused more by appeals to misogyny and Islamophobia, than by fixing their broken schools and hospitals? Research shows that low-income voters in multi-ethnic areas are more relaxed about having Muslim neighbours than those of the higher income groups, who are less likely to mix socially with other ethnic groups. Is the truth of the matter that it is the latter group to whom Lee Anderson appeals. As for misogyny, is it not a case of Tory MPs thinking that most low-income male voters have the same misogynistic attitudes they hold. I suspect that any survey of male Tory MPs would demonstrate a higher levels of Islamophobia, sexism and misogyny than is current in the nation as a whole. The sad truth is that most of us have little in common with these Tory MPs. Derrick Joad Leeds I totally agree with Caroline Lucas’s condemnation of Rishi Sunak’s nauseating speech on Friday ( ‘I’m still reeling from Rishi Sunak’s shameless, dangerous speech’, 3 March ). Sunak’s hypocrisy was breathtaking, even by this government’s low standards. No one has done more to promote division and intolerance than the Conservatives, or to demonise and insult those they dislike or disagree with. Since 2010, we have seen the Home Office hire a fleet of vans telling immigrants to “ go home ”, heard the unemployed described as skivers not strivers, homelessness described as “ a lifestyle choice ”, opponents of Brexit portrayed as unpatriotic or ridiculed as “remoaners”, rightwing vigilantes vandalising Ulez cameras in London defended , and senior Conservatives recently insulting the Muslim (Labour) mayor of London. Meanwhile, young people are routinely derided as snowflakes, while anyone who believes in social justice or basic human decency is sneered at for being woke. All of this while ministers, claiming to be defenders of free speech against cancel culture, introduce voter ID laws (calculating that citizens who are less likely to vote Conservative will also be less likely to have official ID), curb the rights to protest and strike, try to bully the BBC into becoming a government mouthpiece and regularly demand the scrapping of human rights legislation . If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror. Pete Dorey Bath I felt a tingle of excitement when Rishi Sunak’s impromptu press conference was announced ( Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech, 1 March ). I thought that someone in No 10 had a sense of history, and wanted to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the “Who governs Britain?” election, as a prelude to an announcement that we would get a chance to answer that same question next month. But I soon realised that I was as deluded as cabinet members seem to be about the state we’re in. It’s a bit late for Sunak to start hand-wringing, either as a response to democracy having thrown up a result that he doesn’t like or as faux concern at the tone of modern political discourse. We are not experiencing “mob rule”, but those with power have provoked and stoked anger, disillusionment and disengagement. Unlawfully suspending parliament, and then briefing against members of the judiciary as “ enemies of the people ” when they delivered their verdict, have been a more serious assault on democracy than the chanting of any slogans. Les Bright Exeter I’m concerned at the use of the word “insurgent” to describe two individuals who have stood in a byelection to be democratically elected as a member of parliament ( Report, 1 March ). While George Galloway’s views may not be to everyone’s taste, his and David Tully’s success in Rochdale reflects a dissatisfaction with the government and opposition rather than the violence and struggle that this word implies. On the day that the front page read “Democracy is at threat from ‘extremists’, claims Sunak”, we needed the Guardian to tread a less inflammatory line. Matthew Clark Hadlow, Kent Marina Hyde’s article explains why many voters such as myself will vote in the coming election out of a sense of duty, not enthusiasm ( Look at the political hellscape of Sunak, Anderson, even Starmer and ask: are they making my life any better?, 27 February ). There seems to be no depth to which these politicians won’t go to get down with the people. Even the opposition hesitates to call out such behaviour, for fear of alienating “key voters”. What it reveals is the contempt with which politicians view the electorate. Do they really think “red wall” voters are enthused more by appeals to misogyny and Islamophobia, than by fixing their broken schools and hospitals? Research shows that low-income voters in multi-ethnic areas are more relaxed about having Muslim neighbours than those of the higher income groups, who are less likely to mix socially with other ethnic groups. Is the truth of the matter that it is the latter group to whom Lee Anderson appeals. As for misogyny, is it not a case of Tory MPs thinking that most low-income male voters have the same misogynistic attitudes they hold. I suspect that any survey of male Tory MPs would demonstrate a higher levels of Islamophobia, sexism and misogyny than is current in the nation as a whole. The sad truth is that most of us have little in common with these Tory MPs. Derrick Joad Leeds I totally agree with Caroline Lucas’s condemnation of Rishi Sunak’s nauseating speech on Friday ( ‘I’m still reeling from Rishi Sunak’s shameless, dangerous speech’, 3 March ). Sunak’s hypocrisy was breathtaking, even by this government’s low standards. No one has done more to promote division and intolerance than the Conservatives, or to demonise and insult those they dislike or disagree with. Since 2010, we have seen the Home Office hire a fleet of vans telling immigrants to “ go home ”, heard the unemployed described as skivers not strivers, homelessness described as “ a lifestyle choice ”, opponents of Brexit portrayed as unpatriotic or ridiculed as “remoaners”, rightwing vigilantes vandalising Ulez cameras in London defended , and senior Conservatives recently insulting the Muslim (Labour) mayor of London. Meanwhile, young people are routinely derided as snowflakes, while anyone who believes in social justice or basic human decency is sneered at for being woke. All of this while ministers, claiming to be defenders of free speech against cancel culture, introduce voter ID laws (calculating that citizens who are less likely to vote Conservative will also be less likely to have official ID), curb the rights to protest and strike, try to bully the BBC into becoming a government mouthpiece and regularly demand the scrapping of human rights legislation . If Sunak is worried about threats to democracy posed by intolerance, extremism and mob rule, he and his senior colleagues should collectively look in the mirror. Pete Dorey Bath I felt a tingle of excitement when Rishi Sunak’s impromptu press conference was announced ( Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech, 1 March ). I thought that someone in No 10 had a sense of history, and wanted to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the “Who governs Britain?” election, as a prelude to an announcement that we would get a chance to answer that same question next month. But I soon realised that I was as deluded as cabinet members seem to be about the state we’re in. It’s a bit late for Sunak to start hand-wringing, either as a response to democracy having thrown up a result that he doesn’t like or as faux concern at the tone of modern political discourse. We are not experiencing “mob rule”, but those with power have provoked and stoked anger, disillusionment and disengagement. Unlawfully suspending parliament, and then briefing against members of the judiciary as “ enemies of the people ” when they delivered their verdict, have been a more serious assault on democracy than the chanting of any slogans. Les Bright Exeter I’m concerned at the use of the word “insurgent” to describe two individuals who have stood in a byelection to be democratically elected as a member of parliament ( Report, 1 March ). While George Galloway’s views may not be to everyone’s taste, his and David Tully’s success in Rochdale reflects a dissatisfaction with the government and opposition rather than the violence and struggle that this word implies. On the day that the front page read “Democracy is at threat from ‘extremists’, claims Sunak”, we needed the Guardian to tread a less inflammatory line. Matthew Clark Hadlow, Kent Marina Hyde’s article explains why many voters such as myself will vote in the coming election out of a sense of duty, not enthusiasm ( Look at the political hellscape of Sunak, Anderson, even Starmer and ask: are they making my life any better?, 27 February ). There seems to be no depth to which these politicians won’t go to get down with the people. Even the opposition hesitates to call out such behaviour, for fear of alienating “key voters”. What it reveals is the contempt with which politicians view the electorate. Do they really think “red wall” voters are enthused more by appeals to misogyny and Islamophobia, than by fixing their broken schools and hospitals? Research shows that low-income voters in multi-ethnic areas are more relaxed about having Muslim neighbours than those of the higher income groups, who are less likely to mix socially with other ethnic groups. Is the truth of the matter that it is the latter group to whom Lee Anderson appeals. As for misogyny, is it not a case of Tory MPs thinking that most low-income male voters have the same misogynistic attitudes they hold. I suspect that any survey of male Tory MPs would demonstrate a higher levels of Islamophobia, sexism and misogyny than is current in the nation as a whole. The sad truth is that most of us have little in common with these Tory MPs. Derrick Joad Leeds Explore more on these topics Conservatives Rishi Sunak George Galloway Byelections Protest Race letters Share Reuse this content Conservatives Rishi Sunak George Galloway Byelections Protest Race letters |
‘If the sea rises we’ll have to leave’: plans to restart gas drilling threaten Italy’s sinking delta
Sunken buildings on Batteria, an island in the Po delta, affected over decades by flooding and subsidence aggravated by methane gas drilling. Photograph: Marta Clinco and Andrea Lops/The Guardian Sixty years after fatal floods and subsidence halted gas extraction in the Po delta region, politicians are once again eyeing methane reserves. But at what cost to one of the Mediterranean’s largest wetlands and the people who live there? By Giorgio Ghiglione in Porto Tolle, Polesine T o a visitor driving through Polesine in north-east Italy on a winter morning, the area might seem blessed with an abundance of wildlife. The biodiversity is among the richest in Italy, with 400 species of bird , lagoons, marshes and reed beds that have created a true natural labyrinth. Yet, it soon becomes obvious that something is not right: houses and fields are all lower than the road, visibly sunken, protected by embankments about four metres high. The reason? Without those barriers, they would be under water. The entire area of Polesine, a strip of land between the Po delta and the Adriatic Sea, has long suffered the consequences of subsidence, but it was aggravated by gas extraction, which is why the practice was banned by the government in 1961. Before it did so, there was Batteria – an island that no longer exists . Covering almost 300 hectares (740 acres) in the Po delta, Batteria was home to a few houses, a farm, warehouses, rice fields and lagoons for cultivating fish. But then, in 1976, a storm came in off the Adriatic Sea and Batteria was gone. View image in fullscreen Natale Mantovan, a fisher from Pila on the Po delta, pointing out the sunken buildings of Batteria island. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian “If you want to see Batteria it’s down here, three metres under water,” says Natale Mantovan, a fisher, as he stops his boat near some semi-submerged buildings. “Twenty of us lived on the island and 1,500 worked there. Today, I pass only a few other fishermen in search of eels and mullet.” Map showing the Po delta and submerged Batteria island with Venice to the north. Over the centuries, Batteria had been affected by subsidence . It is not uncommon in sedimentary soils but in Batteria’s case the process was accelerated by the extraction of methane gas, experts say. View image in fullscreen One of the hundreds of wells used to extract methane gas in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Now, the region is under threat once again. The Italian government has reversed the ban, announcing that gas extraction will be allowed to restart. The plan is to drill new wells in the upper Adriatic, off the Polesine coast, an announcement that sparked fury and protests from residents last December. Polesine, part of the Veneto region, is rich in methane: “We have always known that this is an area rich in gas, you just need to make a hole in a ditch and the brackish water comes out,” says Vanni Destro, a retired railway worker and member of the Polesine No Drills Committee, a group that opposes new gas extraction. The first wells were built in 1935 and, by 1959, there were 1,424 . The extraction process draws gas and salt water from the subsoil and then separates the two. The problem with taking large amounts of water from underneath the soil is that it makes the ground – that already has a tendency to sink – even more unstable, causing it to sink much faster. View image in fullscreen Giorgio Crepaldi, an opponent of restarting gas extraction and member of the No Drills Committee, beside one of the hundreds of methane wells in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian In the 1950s the area experienced serious floods, including one in November 1951 that left 84 people dead and displaced almost 200,000. The Red Cross estimated at the time that 100,000 hectares (almost 250,000 acres) of land, a surface area larger than Lake Geneva, were submerged. That decade witnessed an exodus of 150,000 people from Polesine. In 1957, the seismologist Pietro Caloi, commissioned by the government to assess the causes, determined that gas extraction was to blame for “almost the entire collapse of the terrain observed in the delta”. Caloi urged the authorities to close the wells. The government followed the advice, but it wasn’t the end of the story. The rate of subsidence simply slowed down. “It’s not enough to turn everything off, there’s a huge driving force that goes on for 30 to 40 years,” says Giancarlo Mantovani, an engineer heading the Consorzio di Bonifica , a public body that manages reclamation works in the Po delta. “Since they closed the wells we have dropped by a further two-and-a-half metres.” View image in fullscreen The Po delta from the air, showing how vulnerable the remaining land is to subsidence and flooding. Photograph: Marta Clinco and Andrea Lops/The Guardian If the area is still suffering from the effects of past gas extraction, it raises the question why Italy’s government has decided to resume the practice after 60 years. The war in Ukraine has played a part. Italy used to rely on Russian gas and is trying to boost its domestic production in an effort to increase its energy security. In her 2022 inauguration speech, Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni said : “Our seas have gas deposits that we have a duty to exploit.” The proposed new wells in Polesine will be built in the sea (previously they were on land), but they are close to the coast. Offshore wells so near the coast have been demonstrated to affect subsidence in adjacent land, according to Mantovani. “A drilling station in front of Lido di Dante, near Ravenna [further south], caused the ground to sink by one-and-a-half metres,” he says. View image in fullscreen A former methane gas extraction plant in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Environmental groups strongly oppose the project. They argue that authorities are risking the environment for a minimal amount of gas . “We are talking about a total of almost 7bn cubic metres of gas – at the rate of one-and-a-half billion per year,” says Giorgio Crepaldi, another member of the No Drills Committee. It’s a fraction of Italy’s annual consumption of 70bn cubic metres. “The government just wants to show they are doing something about the rise in energy costs, but with no regard for the local populations.” Local politicians also oppose it, including Veneto governor Luca Zaia , a key member of the rightwing League party, the main political ally of Meloni’s Brothers of Italy. Moreno Gasparini, the mayor of the small town of Loreo and president of the Veneto regional park of the Po delta, also a conservative, is another of the project’s staunch opponents. “It would be detrimental to the territory,” he says. “The whole delta is below sea level. Thanks to the barriers we can live here but if the sea rises we’ll have to leave.” Gasparini is ready to fight, he says. “Should the drilling start, we’ll block the roads.” In 2022, the Veneto region convened a panel of experts to study the situation. They issued a report stating that there was not enough information to determine the impact the drilling would have on nearby areas and concluded that “out of caution, the activity cannot be allowed”. One of the experts, urban planner Francesco Musco , says that subsidence is not the only risk. The Po delta, he says, is one of the largest wetland areas in the Mediterranean: “Do we want to extract or do we want to preserve?” Then, there are economic considerations: “This could jeopardise fishing and tourism, which matter a lot. Are we sure it’s the best choice?” Yet, despite the opposition and the negative report, Italy’s central government, which has the final say, seems determined to go ahead with the extraction. View image in fullscreen An abandoned sunken building near Batteria island, Polesine, Italy. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Crepaldi thinks the government should learn from history. “I grew up here and one of my earliest memories is from when I was three, when soldiers were driving around telling people to leave their homes because they were expecting a flood,” he says. “Haven’t episodes like that taught us anything?” Explore more on these topics Seascape: the state of our oceans Gas Italy Giorgia Meloni Energy Fossil fuels Europe features Share Reuse this content Sunken buildings on Batteria, an island in the Po delta, affected over decades by flooding and subsidence aggravated by methane gas drilling. Photograph: Marta Clinco and Andrea Lops/The Guardian Sixty years after fatal floods and subsidence halted gas extraction in the Po delta region, politicians are once again eyeing methane reserves. But at what cost to one of the Mediterranean’s largest wetlands and the people who live there? By Giorgio Ghiglione in Porto Tolle, Polesine T o a visitor driving through Polesine in north-east Italy on a winter morning, the area might seem blessed with an abundance of wildlife. The biodiversity is among the richest in Italy, with 400 species of bird , lagoons, marshes and reed beds that have created a true natural labyrinth. Yet, it soon becomes obvious that something is not right: houses and fields are all lower than the road, visibly sunken, protected by embankments about four metres high. The reason? Without those barriers, they would be under water. The entire area of Polesine, a strip of land between the Po delta and the Adriatic Sea, has long suffered the consequences of subsidence, but it was aggravated by gas extraction, which is why the practice was banned by the government in 1961. Before it did so, there was Batteria – an island that no longer exists . Covering almost 300 hectares (740 acres) in the Po delta, Batteria was home to a few houses, a farm, warehouses, rice fields and lagoons for cultivating fish. But then, in 1976, a storm came in off the Adriatic Sea and Batteria was gone. View image in fullscreen Natale Mantovan, a fisher from Pila on the Po delta, pointing out the sunken buildings of Batteria island. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian “If you want to see Batteria it’s down here, three metres under water,” says Natale Mantovan, a fisher, as he stops his boat near some semi-submerged buildings. “Twenty of us lived on the island and 1,500 worked there. Today, I pass only a few other fishermen in search of eels and mullet.” Map showing the Po delta and submerged Batteria island with Venice to the north. Over the centuries, Batteria had been affected by subsidence . It is not uncommon in sedimentary soils but in Batteria’s case the process was accelerated by the extraction of methane gas, experts say. View image in fullscreen One of the hundreds of wells used to extract methane gas in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Now, the region is under threat once again. The Italian government has reversed the ban, announcing that gas extraction will be allowed to restart. The plan is to drill new wells in the upper Adriatic, off the Polesine coast, an announcement that sparked fury and protests from residents last December. Polesine, part of the Veneto region, is rich in methane: “We have always known that this is an area rich in gas, you just need to make a hole in a ditch and the brackish water comes out,” says Vanni Destro, a retired railway worker and member of the Polesine No Drills Committee, a group that opposes new gas extraction. The first wells were built in 1935 and, by 1959, there were 1,424 . The extraction process draws gas and salt water from the subsoil and then separates the two. The problem with taking large amounts of water from underneath the soil is that it makes the ground – that already has a tendency to sink – even more unstable, causing it to sink much faster. View image in fullscreen Giorgio Crepaldi, an opponent of restarting gas extraction and member of the No Drills Committee, beside one of the hundreds of methane wells in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian In the 1950s the area experienced serious floods, including one in November 1951 that left 84 people dead and displaced almost 200,000. The Red Cross estimated at the time that 100,000 hectares (almost 250,000 acres) of land, a surface area larger than Lake Geneva, were submerged. That decade witnessed an exodus of 150,000 people from Polesine. In 1957, the seismologist Pietro Caloi, commissioned by the government to assess the causes, determined that gas extraction was to blame for “almost the entire collapse of the terrain observed in the delta”. Caloi urged the authorities to close the wells. The government followed the advice, but it wasn’t the end of the story. The rate of subsidence simply slowed down. “It’s not enough to turn everything off, there’s a huge driving force that goes on for 30 to 40 years,” says Giancarlo Mantovani, an engineer heading the Consorzio di Bonifica , a public body that manages reclamation works in the Po delta. “Since they closed the wells we have dropped by a further two-and-a-half metres.” View image in fullscreen The Po delta from the air, showing how vulnerable the remaining land is to subsidence and flooding. Photograph: Marta Clinco and Andrea Lops/The Guardian If the area is still suffering from the effects of past gas extraction, it raises the question why Italy’s government has decided to resume the practice after 60 years. The war in Ukraine has played a part. Italy used to rely on Russian gas and is trying to boost its domestic production in an effort to increase its energy security. In her 2022 inauguration speech, Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni said : “Our seas have gas deposits that we have a duty to exploit.” The proposed new wells in Polesine will be built in the sea (previously they were on land), but they are close to the coast. Offshore wells so near the coast have been demonstrated to affect subsidence in adjacent land, according to Mantovani. “A drilling station in front of Lido di Dante, near Ravenna [further south], caused the ground to sink by one-and-a-half metres,” he says. View image in fullscreen A former methane gas extraction plant in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Environmental groups strongly oppose the project. They argue that authorities are risking the environment for a minimal amount of gas . “We are talking about a total of almost 7bn cubic metres of gas – at the rate of one-and-a-half billion per year,” says Giorgio Crepaldi, another member of the No Drills Committee. It’s a fraction of Italy’s annual consumption of 70bn cubic metres. “The government just wants to show they are doing something about the rise in energy costs, but with no regard for the local populations.” Local politicians also oppose it, including Veneto governor Luca Zaia , a key member of the rightwing League party, the main political ally of Meloni’s Brothers of Italy. Moreno Gasparini, the mayor of the small town of Loreo and president of the Veneto regional park of the Po delta, also a conservative, is another of the project’s staunch opponents. “It would be detrimental to the territory,” he says. “The whole delta is below sea level. Thanks to the barriers we can live here but if the sea rises we’ll have to leave.” Gasparini is ready to fight, he says. “Should the drilling start, we’ll block the roads.” In 2022, the Veneto region convened a panel of experts to study the situation. They issued a report stating that there was not enough information to determine the impact the drilling would have on nearby areas and concluded that “out of caution, the activity cannot be allowed”. One of the experts, urban planner Francesco Musco , says that subsidence is not the only risk. The Po delta, he says, is one of the largest wetland areas in the Mediterranean: “Do we want to extract or do we want to preserve?” Then, there are economic considerations: “This could jeopardise fishing and tourism, which matter a lot. Are we sure it’s the best choice?” Yet, despite the opposition and the negative report, Italy’s central government, which has the final say, seems determined to go ahead with the extraction. View image in fullscreen An abandoned sunken building near Batteria island, Polesine, Italy. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Crepaldi thinks the government should learn from history. “I grew up here and one of my earliest memories is from when I was three, when soldiers were driving around telling people to leave their homes because they were expecting a flood,” he says. “Haven’t episodes like that taught us anything?” Explore more on these topics Seascape: the state of our oceans Gas Italy Giorgia Meloni Energy Fossil fuels Europe features Share Reuse this content Sunken buildings on Batteria, an island in the Po delta, affected over decades by flooding and subsidence aggravated by methane gas drilling. Photograph: Marta Clinco and Andrea Lops/The Guardian Sixty years after fatal floods and subsidence halted gas extraction in the Po delta region, politicians are once again eyeing methane reserves. But at what cost to one of the Mediterranean’s largest wetlands and the people who live there? Sixty years after fatal floods and subsidence halted gas extraction in the Po delta region, politicians are once again eyeing methane reserves. But at what cost to one of the Mediterranean’s largest wetlands and the people who live there? Sixty years after fatal floods and subsidence halted gas extraction in the Po delta region, politicians are once again eyeing methane reserves. But at what cost to one of the Mediterranean’s largest wetlands and the people who live there? By Giorgio Ghiglione in Porto Tolle, Polesine By Giorgio Ghiglione in Porto Tolle, Polesine T o a visitor driving through Polesine in north-east Italy on a winter morning, the area might seem blessed with an abundance of wildlife. The biodiversity is among the richest in Italy, with 400 species of bird , lagoons, marshes and reed beds that have created a true natural labyrinth. Yet, it soon becomes obvious that something is not right: houses and fields are all lower than the road, visibly sunken, protected by embankments about four metres high. The reason? Without those barriers, they would be under water. The entire area of Polesine, a strip of land between the Po delta and the Adriatic Sea, has long suffered the consequences of subsidence, but it was aggravated by gas extraction, which is why the practice was banned by the government in 1961. Before it did so, there was Batteria – an island that no longer exists . Covering almost 300 hectares (740 acres) in the Po delta, Batteria was home to a few houses, a farm, warehouses, rice fields and lagoons for cultivating fish. But then, in 1976, a storm came in off the Adriatic Sea and Batteria was gone. View image in fullscreen Natale Mantovan, a fisher from Pila on the Po delta, pointing out the sunken buildings of Batteria island. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian “If you want to see Batteria it’s down here, three metres under water,” says Natale Mantovan, a fisher, as he stops his boat near some semi-submerged buildings. “Twenty of us lived on the island and 1,500 worked there. Today, I pass only a few other fishermen in search of eels and mullet.” Map showing the Po delta and submerged Batteria island with Venice to the north. Over the centuries, Batteria had been affected by subsidence . It is not uncommon in sedimentary soils but in Batteria’s case the process was accelerated by the extraction of methane gas, experts say. View image in fullscreen One of the hundreds of wells used to extract methane gas in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Now, the region is under threat once again. The Italian government has reversed the ban, announcing that gas extraction will be allowed to restart. The plan is to drill new wells in the upper Adriatic, off the Polesine coast, an announcement that sparked fury and protests from residents last December. Polesine, part of the Veneto region, is rich in methane: “We have always known that this is an area rich in gas, you just need to make a hole in a ditch and the brackish water comes out,” says Vanni Destro, a retired railway worker and member of the Polesine No Drills Committee, a group that opposes new gas extraction. The first wells were built in 1935 and, by 1959, there were 1,424 . The extraction process draws gas and salt water from the subsoil and then separates the two. The problem with taking large amounts of water from underneath the soil is that it makes the ground – that already has a tendency to sink – even more unstable, causing it to sink much faster. View image in fullscreen Giorgio Crepaldi, an opponent of restarting gas extraction and member of the No Drills Committee, beside one of the hundreds of methane wells in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian In the 1950s the area experienced serious floods, including one in November 1951 that left 84 people dead and displaced almost 200,000. The Red Cross estimated at the time that 100,000 hectares (almost 250,000 acres) of land, a surface area larger than Lake Geneva, were submerged. That decade witnessed an exodus of 150,000 people from Polesine. In 1957, the seismologist Pietro Caloi, commissioned by the government to assess the causes, determined that gas extraction was to blame for “almost the entire collapse of the terrain observed in the delta”. Caloi urged the authorities to close the wells. The government followed the advice, but it wasn’t the end of the story. The rate of subsidence simply slowed down. “It’s not enough to turn everything off, there’s a huge driving force that goes on for 30 to 40 years,” says Giancarlo Mantovani, an engineer heading the Consorzio di Bonifica , a public body that manages reclamation works in the Po delta. “Since they closed the wells we have dropped by a further two-and-a-half metres.” View image in fullscreen The Po delta from the air, showing how vulnerable the remaining land is to subsidence and flooding. Photograph: Marta Clinco and Andrea Lops/The Guardian If the area is still suffering from the effects of past gas extraction, it raises the question why Italy’s government has decided to resume the practice after 60 years. The war in Ukraine has played a part. Italy used to rely on Russian gas and is trying to boost its domestic production in an effort to increase its energy security. In her 2022 inauguration speech, Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni said : “Our seas have gas deposits that we have a duty to exploit.” The proposed new wells in Polesine will be built in the sea (previously they were on land), but they are close to the coast. Offshore wells so near the coast have been demonstrated to affect subsidence in adjacent land, according to Mantovani. “A drilling station in front of Lido di Dante, near Ravenna [further south], caused the ground to sink by one-and-a-half metres,” he says. View image in fullscreen A former methane gas extraction plant in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Environmental groups strongly oppose the project. They argue that authorities are risking the environment for a minimal amount of gas . “We are talking about a total of almost 7bn cubic metres of gas – at the rate of one-and-a-half billion per year,” says Giorgio Crepaldi, another member of the No Drills Committee. It’s a fraction of Italy’s annual consumption of 70bn cubic metres. “The government just wants to show they are doing something about the rise in energy costs, but with no regard for the local populations.” Local politicians also oppose it, including Veneto governor Luca Zaia , a key member of the rightwing League party, the main political ally of Meloni’s Brothers of Italy. Moreno Gasparini, the mayor of the small town of Loreo and president of the Veneto regional park of the Po delta, also a conservative, is another of the project’s staunch opponents. “It would be detrimental to the territory,” he says. “The whole delta is below sea level. Thanks to the barriers we can live here but if the sea rises we’ll have to leave.” Gasparini is ready to fight, he says. “Should the drilling start, we’ll block the roads.” In 2022, the Veneto region convened a panel of experts to study the situation. They issued a report stating that there was not enough information to determine the impact the drilling would have on nearby areas and concluded that “out of caution, the activity cannot be allowed”. One of the experts, urban planner Francesco Musco , says that subsidence is not the only risk. The Po delta, he says, is one of the largest wetland areas in the Mediterranean: “Do we want to extract or do we want to preserve?” Then, there are economic considerations: “This could jeopardise fishing and tourism, which matter a lot. Are we sure it’s the best choice?” Yet, despite the opposition and the negative report, Italy’s central government, which has the final say, seems determined to go ahead with the extraction. View image in fullscreen An abandoned sunken building near Batteria island, Polesine, Italy. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Crepaldi thinks the government should learn from history. “I grew up here and one of my earliest memories is from when I was three, when soldiers were driving around telling people to leave their homes because they were expecting a flood,” he says. “Haven’t episodes like that taught us anything?” Explore more on these topics Seascape: the state of our oceans Gas Italy Giorgia Meloni Energy Fossil fuels Europe features Share Reuse this content T o a visitor driving through Polesine in north-east Italy on a winter morning, the area might seem blessed with an abundance of wildlife. The biodiversity is among the richest in Italy, with 400 species of bird , lagoons, marshes and reed beds that have created a true natural labyrinth. Yet, it soon becomes obvious that something is not right: houses and fields are all lower than the road, visibly sunken, protected by embankments about four metres high. The reason? Without those barriers, they would be under water. The entire area of Polesine, a strip of land between the Po delta and the Adriatic Sea, has long suffered the consequences of subsidence, but it was aggravated by gas extraction, which is why the practice was banned by the government in 1961. Before it did so, there was Batteria – an island that no longer exists . Covering almost 300 hectares (740 acres) in the Po delta, Batteria was home to a few houses, a farm, warehouses, rice fields and lagoons for cultivating fish. But then, in 1976, a storm came in off the Adriatic Sea and Batteria was gone. View image in fullscreen Natale Mantovan, a fisher from Pila on the Po delta, pointing out the sunken buildings of Batteria island. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian “If you want to see Batteria it’s down here, three metres under water,” says Natale Mantovan, a fisher, as he stops his boat near some semi-submerged buildings. “Twenty of us lived on the island and 1,500 worked there. Today, I pass only a few other fishermen in search of eels and mullet.” Map showing the Po delta and submerged Batteria island with Venice to the north. Over the centuries, Batteria had been affected by subsidence . It is not uncommon in sedimentary soils but in Batteria’s case the process was accelerated by the extraction of methane gas, experts say. View image in fullscreen One of the hundreds of wells used to extract methane gas in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Now, the region is under threat once again. The Italian government has reversed the ban, announcing that gas extraction will be allowed to restart. The plan is to drill new wells in the upper Adriatic, off the Polesine coast, an announcement that sparked fury and protests from residents last December. Polesine, part of the Veneto region, is rich in methane: “We have always known that this is an area rich in gas, you just need to make a hole in a ditch and the brackish water comes out,” says Vanni Destro, a retired railway worker and member of the Polesine No Drills Committee, a group that opposes new gas extraction. The first wells were built in 1935 and, by 1959, there were 1,424 . The extraction process draws gas and salt water from the subsoil and then separates the two. The problem with taking large amounts of water from underneath the soil is that it makes the ground – that already has a tendency to sink – even more unstable, causing it to sink much faster. View image in fullscreen Giorgio Crepaldi, an opponent of restarting gas extraction and member of the No Drills Committee, beside one of the hundreds of methane wells in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian In the 1950s the area experienced serious floods, including one in November 1951 that left 84 people dead and displaced almost 200,000. The Red Cross estimated at the time that 100,000 hectares (almost 250,000 acres) of land, a surface area larger than Lake Geneva, were submerged. That decade witnessed an exodus of 150,000 people from Polesine. In 1957, the seismologist Pietro Caloi, commissioned by the government to assess the causes, determined that gas extraction was to blame for “almost the entire collapse of the terrain observed in the delta”. Caloi urged the authorities to close the wells. The government followed the advice, but it wasn’t the end of the story. The rate of subsidence simply slowed down. “It’s not enough to turn everything off, there’s a huge driving force that goes on for 30 to 40 years,” says Giancarlo Mantovani, an engineer heading the Consorzio di Bonifica , a public body that manages reclamation works in the Po delta. “Since they closed the wells we have dropped by a further two-and-a-half metres.” View image in fullscreen The Po delta from the air, showing how vulnerable the remaining land is to subsidence and flooding. Photograph: Marta Clinco and Andrea Lops/The Guardian If the area is still suffering from the effects of past gas extraction, it raises the question why Italy’s government has decided to resume the practice after 60 years. The war in Ukraine has played a part. Italy used to rely on Russian gas and is trying to boost its domestic production in an effort to increase its energy security. In her 2022 inauguration speech, Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni said : “Our seas have gas deposits that we have a duty to exploit.” The proposed new wells in Polesine will be built in the sea (previously they were on land), but they are close to the coast. Offshore wells so near the coast have been demonstrated to affect subsidence in adjacent land, according to Mantovani. “A drilling station in front of Lido di Dante, near Ravenna [further south], caused the ground to sink by one-and-a-half metres,” he says. View image in fullscreen A former methane gas extraction plant in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Environmental groups strongly oppose the project. They argue that authorities are risking the environment for a minimal amount of gas . “We are talking about a total of almost 7bn cubic metres of gas – at the rate of one-and-a-half billion per year,” says Giorgio Crepaldi, another member of the No Drills Committee. It’s a fraction of Italy’s annual consumption of 70bn cubic metres. “The government just wants to show they are doing something about the rise in energy costs, but with no regard for the local populations.” Local politicians also oppose it, including Veneto governor Luca Zaia , a key member of the rightwing League party, the main political ally of Meloni’s Brothers of Italy. Moreno Gasparini, the mayor of the small town of Loreo and president of the Veneto regional park of the Po delta, also a conservative, is another of the project’s staunch opponents. “It would be detrimental to the territory,” he says. “The whole delta is below sea level. Thanks to the barriers we can live here but if the sea rises we’ll have to leave.” Gasparini is ready to fight, he says. “Should the drilling start, we’ll block the roads.” In 2022, the Veneto region convened a panel of experts to study the situation. They issued a report stating that there was not enough information to determine the impact the drilling would have on nearby areas and concluded that “out of caution, the activity cannot be allowed”. One of the experts, urban planner Francesco Musco , says that subsidence is not the only risk. The Po delta, he says, is one of the largest wetland areas in the Mediterranean: “Do we want to extract or do we want to preserve?” Then, there are economic considerations: “This could jeopardise fishing and tourism, which matter a lot. Are we sure it’s the best choice?” Yet, despite the opposition and the negative report, Italy’s central government, which has the final say, seems determined to go ahead with the extraction. View image in fullscreen An abandoned sunken building near Batteria island, Polesine, Italy. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Crepaldi thinks the government should learn from history. “I grew up here and one of my earliest memories is from when I was three, when soldiers were driving around telling people to leave their homes because they were expecting a flood,” he says. “Haven’t episodes like that taught us anything?” Explore more on these topics Seascape: the state of our oceans Gas Italy Giorgia Meloni Energy Fossil fuels Europe features Share Reuse this content T o a visitor driving through Polesine in north-east Italy on a winter morning, the area might seem blessed with an abundance of wildlife. The biodiversity is among the richest in Italy, with 400 species of bird , lagoons, marshes and reed beds that have created a true natural labyrinth. Yet, it soon becomes obvious that something is not right: houses and fields are all lower than the road, visibly sunken, protected by embankments about four metres high. The reason? Without those barriers, they would be under water. The entire area of Polesine, a strip of land between the Po delta and the Adriatic Sea, has long suffered the consequences of subsidence, but it was aggravated by gas extraction, which is why the practice was banned by the government in 1961. Before it did so, there was Batteria – an island that no longer exists . Covering almost 300 hectares (740 acres) in the Po delta, Batteria was home to a few houses, a farm, warehouses, rice fields and lagoons for cultivating fish. But then, in 1976, a storm came in off the Adriatic Sea and Batteria was gone. View image in fullscreen Natale Mantovan, a fisher from Pila on the Po delta, pointing out the sunken buildings of Batteria island. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian “If you want to see Batteria it’s down here, three metres under water,” says Natale Mantovan, a fisher, as he stops his boat near some semi-submerged buildings. “Twenty of us lived on the island and 1,500 worked there. Today, I pass only a few other fishermen in search of eels and mullet.” Map showing the Po delta and submerged Batteria island with Venice to the north. Over the centuries, Batteria had been affected by subsidence . It is not uncommon in sedimentary soils but in Batteria’s case the process was accelerated by the extraction of methane gas, experts say. View image in fullscreen One of the hundreds of wells used to extract methane gas in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Now, the region is under threat once again. The Italian government has reversed the ban, announcing that gas extraction will be allowed to restart. The plan is to drill new wells in the upper Adriatic, off the Polesine coast, an announcement that sparked fury and protests from residents last December. Polesine, part of the Veneto region, is rich in methane: “We have always known that this is an area rich in gas, you just need to make a hole in a ditch and the brackish water comes out,” says Vanni Destro, a retired railway worker and member of the Polesine No Drills Committee, a group that opposes new gas extraction. The first wells were built in 1935 and, by 1959, there were 1,424 . The extraction process draws gas and salt water from the subsoil and then separates the two. The problem with taking large amounts of water from underneath the soil is that it makes the ground – that already has a tendency to sink – even more unstable, causing it to sink much faster. View image in fullscreen Giorgio Crepaldi, an opponent of restarting gas extraction and member of the No Drills Committee, beside one of the hundreds of methane wells in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian In the 1950s the area experienced serious floods, including one in November 1951 that left 84 people dead and displaced almost 200,000. The Red Cross estimated at the time that 100,000 hectares (almost 250,000 acres) of land, a surface area larger than Lake Geneva, were submerged. That decade witnessed an exodus of 150,000 people from Polesine. In 1957, the seismologist Pietro Caloi, commissioned by the government to assess the causes, determined that gas extraction was to blame for “almost the entire collapse of the terrain observed in the delta”. Caloi urged the authorities to close the wells. The government followed the advice, but it wasn’t the end of the story. The rate of subsidence simply slowed down. “It’s not enough to turn everything off, there’s a huge driving force that goes on for 30 to 40 years,” says Giancarlo Mantovani, an engineer heading the Consorzio di Bonifica , a public body that manages reclamation works in the Po delta. “Since they closed the wells we have dropped by a further two-and-a-half metres.” View image in fullscreen The Po delta from the air, showing how vulnerable the remaining land is to subsidence and flooding. Photograph: Marta Clinco and Andrea Lops/The Guardian If the area is still suffering from the effects of past gas extraction, it raises the question why Italy’s government has decided to resume the practice after 60 years. The war in Ukraine has played a part. Italy used to rely on Russian gas and is trying to boost its domestic production in an effort to increase its energy security. In her 2022 inauguration speech, Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni said : “Our seas have gas deposits that we have a duty to exploit.” The proposed new wells in Polesine will be built in the sea (previously they were on land), but they are close to the coast. Offshore wells so near the coast have been demonstrated to affect subsidence in adjacent land, according to Mantovani. “A drilling station in front of Lido di Dante, near Ravenna [further south], caused the ground to sink by one-and-a-half metres,” he says. View image in fullscreen A former methane gas extraction plant in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Environmental groups strongly oppose the project. They argue that authorities are risking the environment for a minimal amount of gas . “We are talking about a total of almost 7bn cubic metres of gas – at the rate of one-and-a-half billion per year,” says Giorgio Crepaldi, another member of the No Drills Committee. It’s a fraction of Italy’s annual consumption of 70bn cubic metres. “The government just wants to show they are doing something about the rise in energy costs, but with no regard for the local populations.” Local politicians also oppose it, including Veneto governor Luca Zaia , a key member of the rightwing League party, the main political ally of Meloni’s Brothers of Italy. Moreno Gasparini, the mayor of the small town of Loreo and president of the Veneto regional park of the Po delta, also a conservative, is another of the project’s staunch opponents. “It would be detrimental to the territory,” he says. “The whole delta is below sea level. Thanks to the barriers we can live here but if the sea rises we’ll have to leave.” Gasparini is ready to fight, he says. “Should the drilling start, we’ll block the roads.” In 2022, the Veneto region convened a panel of experts to study the situation. They issued a report stating that there was not enough information to determine the impact the drilling would have on nearby areas and concluded that “out of caution, the activity cannot be allowed”. One of the experts, urban planner Francesco Musco , says that subsidence is not the only risk. The Po delta, he says, is one of the largest wetland areas in the Mediterranean: “Do we want to extract or do we want to preserve?” Then, there are economic considerations: “This could jeopardise fishing and tourism, which matter a lot. Are we sure it’s the best choice?” Yet, despite the opposition and the negative report, Italy’s central government, which has the final say, seems determined to go ahead with the extraction. View image in fullscreen An abandoned sunken building near Batteria island, Polesine, Italy. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Crepaldi thinks the government should learn from history. “I grew up here and one of my earliest memories is from when I was three, when soldiers were driving around telling people to leave their homes because they were expecting a flood,” he says. “Haven’t episodes like that taught us anything?” T o a visitor driving through Polesine in north-east Italy on a winter morning, the area might seem blessed with an abundance of wildlife. The biodiversity is among the richest in Italy, with 400 species of bird , lagoons, marshes and reed beds that have created a true natural labyrinth. Yet, it soon becomes obvious that something is not right: houses and fields are all lower than the road, visibly sunken, protected by embankments about four metres high. The reason? Without those barriers, they would be under water. The entire area of Polesine, a strip of land between the Po delta and the Adriatic Sea, has long suffered the consequences of subsidence, but it was aggravated by gas extraction, which is why the practice was banned by the government in 1961. Before it did so, there was Batteria – an island that no longer exists . Covering almost 300 hectares (740 acres) in the Po delta, Batteria was home to a few houses, a farm, warehouses, rice fields and lagoons for cultivating fish. But then, in 1976, a storm came in off the Adriatic Sea and Batteria was gone. View image in fullscreen Natale Mantovan, a fisher from Pila on the Po delta, pointing out the sunken buildings of Batteria island. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian “If you want to see Batteria it’s down here, three metres under water,” says Natale Mantovan, a fisher, as he stops his boat near some semi-submerged buildings. “Twenty of us lived on the island and 1,500 worked there. Today, I pass only a few other fishermen in search of eels and mullet.” Map showing the Po delta and submerged Batteria island with Venice to the north. Over the centuries, Batteria had been affected by subsidence . It is not uncommon in sedimentary soils but in Batteria’s case the process was accelerated by the extraction of methane gas, experts say. View image in fullscreen One of the hundreds of wells used to extract methane gas in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Now, the region is under threat once again. The Italian government has reversed the ban, announcing that gas extraction will be allowed to restart. The plan is to drill new wells in the upper Adriatic, off the Polesine coast, an announcement that sparked fury and protests from residents last December. Polesine, part of the Veneto region, is rich in methane: “We have always known that this is an area rich in gas, you just need to make a hole in a ditch and the brackish water comes out,” says Vanni Destro, a retired railway worker and member of the Polesine No Drills Committee, a group that opposes new gas extraction. The first wells were built in 1935 and, by 1959, there were 1,424 . The extraction process draws gas and salt water from the subsoil and then separates the two. The problem with taking large amounts of water from underneath the soil is that it makes the ground – that already has a tendency to sink – even more unstable, causing it to sink much faster. View image in fullscreen Giorgio Crepaldi, an opponent of restarting gas extraction and member of the No Drills Committee, beside one of the hundreds of methane wells in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian In the 1950s the area experienced serious floods, including one in November 1951 that left 84 people dead and displaced almost 200,000. The Red Cross estimated at the time that 100,000 hectares (almost 250,000 acres) of land, a surface area larger than Lake Geneva, were submerged. That decade witnessed an exodus of 150,000 people from Polesine. In 1957, the seismologist Pietro Caloi, commissioned by the government to assess the causes, determined that gas extraction was to blame for “almost the entire collapse of the terrain observed in the delta”. Caloi urged the authorities to close the wells. The government followed the advice, but it wasn’t the end of the story. The rate of subsidence simply slowed down. “It’s not enough to turn everything off, there’s a huge driving force that goes on for 30 to 40 years,” says Giancarlo Mantovani, an engineer heading the Consorzio di Bonifica , a public body that manages reclamation works in the Po delta. “Since they closed the wells we have dropped by a further two-and-a-half metres.” View image in fullscreen The Po delta from the air, showing how vulnerable the remaining land is to subsidence and flooding. Photograph: Marta Clinco and Andrea Lops/The Guardian If the area is still suffering from the effects of past gas extraction, it raises the question why Italy’s government has decided to resume the practice after 60 years. The war in Ukraine has played a part. Italy used to rely on Russian gas and is trying to boost its domestic production in an effort to increase its energy security. In her 2022 inauguration speech, Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni said : “Our seas have gas deposits that we have a duty to exploit.” The proposed new wells in Polesine will be built in the sea (previously they were on land), but they are close to the coast. Offshore wells so near the coast have been demonstrated to affect subsidence in adjacent land, according to Mantovani. “A drilling station in front of Lido di Dante, near Ravenna [further south], caused the ground to sink by one-and-a-half metres,” he says. View image in fullscreen A former methane gas extraction plant in Polesine. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Environmental groups strongly oppose the project. They argue that authorities are risking the environment for a minimal amount of gas . “We are talking about a total of almost 7bn cubic metres of gas – at the rate of one-and-a-half billion per year,” says Giorgio Crepaldi, another member of the No Drills Committee. It’s a fraction of Italy’s annual consumption of 70bn cubic metres. “The government just wants to show they are doing something about the rise in energy costs, but with no regard for the local populations.” Local politicians also oppose it, including Veneto governor Luca Zaia , a key member of the rightwing League party, the main political ally of Meloni’s Brothers of Italy. Moreno Gasparini, the mayor of the small town of Loreo and president of the Veneto regional park of the Po delta, also a conservative, is another of the project’s staunch opponents. “It would be detrimental to the territory,” he says. “The whole delta is below sea level. Thanks to the barriers we can live here but if the sea rises we’ll have to leave.” Gasparini is ready to fight, he says. “Should the drilling start, we’ll block the roads.” In 2022, the Veneto region convened a panel of experts to study the situation. They issued a report stating that there was not enough information to determine the impact the drilling would have on nearby areas and concluded that “out of caution, the activity cannot be allowed”. One of the experts, urban planner Francesco Musco , says that subsidence is not the only risk. The Po delta, he says, is one of the largest wetland areas in the Mediterranean: “Do we want to extract or do we want to preserve?” Then, there are economic considerations: “This could jeopardise fishing and tourism, which matter a lot. Are we sure it’s the best choice?” Yet, despite the opposition and the negative report, Italy’s central government, which has the final say, seems determined to go ahead with the extraction. View image in fullscreen An abandoned sunken building near Batteria island, Polesine, Italy. Photograph: Marta Clinco/The Guardian Crepaldi thinks the government should learn from history. “I grew up here and one of my earliest memories is from when I was three, when soldiers were driving around telling people to leave their homes because they were expecting a flood,” he says. “Haven’t episodes like that taught us anything?” T o a visitor driving through Polesine in north-east Italy on a winter morning, the area might seem blessed with an abundance of wildlife. The biodiversity is among the richest in Italy, with 400
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Ex-Post Office chair gives details of ‘stitch up’ which he says led to Badenoch making false claims about his sacking – as it happened
Sir Mark Rowley has hit back at Rishi Sunak’s criticism of the policing of anti-war protests, dismissing claims officers are failing to enforce the law as “inaccurate” and claiming officers were being branded as “woke and fascist” at the same time. The Metropolitan police commissioner spoke out on Tuesday after police leaders were last week summoned to a summit at Downing Street. It was followed on Friday by the prime minister’s speech on extremism where he claimed forces – with the Met bearing the bulk of demonstrations – were managing rather than policing protests. Addressing the London policing board, Britain’s top officer said that claims “ we are not where the law permits” were inaccurate, and that despite “warm words” offering support for police taking robust action, officers feel undermined with some facing death threats. Rowley also said the majority of demonstrators were peaceful. On Friday Sunak said:“This week I have met with senior police officers and made clear it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage these protests, but police them. And I say this to the police, we will back you when you take action.” In his first comments since the PM’s speech, Rowley said: We’re always operating in a very challenging political environments where tensions remain high and hate crime is still a long way above pre-October 7 levels. Policing is used to being criticised. But where it isn’t justified, I do worry about the impact it has on our officers and staff, and on public confidence as we strive to operate without fear or favour. At the moment, one side of the debate seems to say that we are guilty of two-tier policing and the other side says that we are oppressive and clamping down on the right to freedom of speech. In this context of polarised public debate, I do think sometimes that we’re the first people who are able to be labelled simultaneously, woke and fascists … To suggest that we are not where the law permits, as the law allows policing robustly, is inaccurate. At each of the major protests where the majority have been peaceful, we’ve seen wrongdoing and we’ve acted. He said 360 arrests had been made in total including for public order and terrorism offences. Of those arrests, 90 were of far right supporters with police believing Suella Braverman’s comments immediately before a protest on Remembrance Sunday weekend, at least in part, incited trouble. |
Birmingham council approves biggest budget cuts in local authority history
An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images View image in fullscreen An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Birmingham council approves biggest budget cuts in local authority history This article is more than 1 year old Up to 600 council jobs to be lost, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly Councillors in Birmingham have approved what are thought to be the biggest budget cuts in local authority history, with residents warning that the consequences could be “disastrous” for the city. Birmingham city council met on Tuesday afternoon to debate and vote on a proposed set of cuts that will see the loss of up to 600 council jobs, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly. They also include funding cuts to adult social care, children’s services, flood defences and highway maintenance, while street lights across the city will be dimmed. The Labour-run council also approved a 10% council tax increase for the upcoming financial year, after being granted special permission from the government to increase the rate above the national cap on account of the council declaring itself effectively bankrupt in September. Addressing the council chamber at the start of a heated five-hour debate, the leader, John Cotton, said he “unreservedly apologised to the people of the city” for the “unprecedented scale of cuts”. “I am under no illusion what this budget will mean for our communities,” he said. “The decisions we must make here today will have a lasting impact on every single neighbourhood in Birmingham and that weighs heavily on me.” Cotton said he took responsibility for “Birmingham-specific problems” and urged the government to launch an independent inquiry into what went wrong at the council. But he also blamed the “forest fire raging through local government” and asked, “Who is going to apologise for the prolonged Conservative-led neglect that has brought so many councils to the brink?” Nearly one in five council leaders in England said they were likely to declare bankruptcy in the next 15 months. Robert Alden, the leader of the opposition Conservative group in Birmingham, said the council were “making the biggest ever cuts to services, for Labour’s biggest ever council failure”. “Labour hope residents will believe them when they claim it wasn’t their fault,” he said, alleging the council ignored warnings about the state of the city’s finances. Residents across Birmingham have raised alarm at the impact the cuts could have on local communities, particularly on youth services, libraries, arts organisations and charities supporting vulnerable people. “I think this could be potentially disastrous for the city,” said Lawrence Barton, a business owner and director of Birmingham Pride, which has had its council sponsorship scrapped. “These cuts feel monumental, and people in the city are reeling over it. I’ve had businesses in the city now for over 25 years, and it’s never felt so bleak.” As the full council meeting was under way, dozens of protesters from unions and community groups gathered outside the building chanting “No to cuts”. Birmingham city council issued a section 114 notice, effectively declaring itself bankrupt, in September, with an estimated £300m of savings needed to balance the books. This was largely attributed to a £100m bill to fix the failed installation of a new IT system and a £700m liability for equal pay claims, but councillors have also blamed national government funding cuts at a time of increased demand for services. The meeting came a day after councillors in Nottingham passed a range of swingeing budget cuts on Monday night, with some people reduced to tears as they voted in favour of the proposals. Labour councillors in Nottingham said they did not agree with the cuts – which include council redundancies, reduced funding for youth services and adult social care and a review of libraries – but the intervention of government commissioners and the duty to create a legal budget had tied their hands. David Mellen, the leader of the Labour council, told the meeting: “This is a day that will be remembered by our city for all the wrong reasons. “I stand here to record the fact I do not believe in this budget. I am aware the decision we will make will have an impact that will last many years.” One Labour councillor, Shuguftah Quddoos, who is also the Sheriff of Nottingham, has been suspended from the party after she refused to vote in favour of the cuts. In a statement, the Labour party said: “The council has a duty to set a legal and balanced budget and we expect all Labour group members to support proposals to set a responsible and legal budget.” Explore more on these topics Birmingham Local politics Council tax news Share Reuse this content An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images View image in fullscreen An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Birmingham council approves biggest budget cuts in local authority history This article is more than 1 year old Up to 600 council jobs to be lost, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly Councillors in Birmingham have approved what are thought to be the biggest budget cuts in local authority history, with residents warning that the consequences could be “disastrous” for the city. Birmingham city council met on Tuesday afternoon to debate and vote on a proposed set of cuts that will see the loss of up to 600 council jobs, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly. They also include funding cuts to adult social care, children’s services, flood defences and highway maintenance, while street lights across the city will be dimmed. The Labour-run council also approved a 10% council tax increase for the upcoming financial year, after being granted special permission from the government to increase the rate above the national cap on account of the council declaring itself effectively bankrupt in September. Addressing the council chamber at the start of a heated five-hour debate, the leader, John Cotton, said he “unreservedly apologised to the people of the city” for the “unprecedented scale of cuts”. “I am under no illusion what this budget will mean for our communities,” he said. “The decisions we must make here today will have a lasting impact on every single neighbourhood in Birmingham and that weighs heavily on me.” Cotton said he took responsibility for “Birmingham-specific problems” and urged the government to launch an independent inquiry into what went wrong at the council. But he also blamed the “forest fire raging through local government” and asked, “Who is going to apologise for the prolonged Conservative-led neglect that has brought so many councils to the brink?” Nearly one in five council leaders in England said they were likely to declare bankruptcy in the next 15 months. Robert Alden, the leader of the opposition Conservative group in Birmingham, said the council were “making the biggest ever cuts to services, for Labour’s biggest ever council failure”. “Labour hope residents will believe them when they claim it wasn’t their fault,” he said, alleging the council ignored warnings about the state of the city’s finances. Residents across Birmingham have raised alarm at the impact the cuts could have on local communities, particularly on youth services, libraries, arts organisations and charities supporting vulnerable people. “I think this could be potentially disastrous for the city,” said Lawrence Barton, a business owner and director of Birmingham Pride, which has had its council sponsorship scrapped. “These cuts feel monumental, and people in the city are reeling over it. I’ve had businesses in the city now for over 25 years, and it’s never felt so bleak.” As the full council meeting was under way, dozens of protesters from unions and community groups gathered outside the building chanting “No to cuts”. Birmingham city council issued a section 114 notice, effectively declaring itself bankrupt, in September, with an estimated £300m of savings needed to balance the books. This was largely attributed to a £100m bill to fix the failed installation of a new IT system and a £700m liability for equal pay claims, but councillors have also blamed national government funding cuts at a time of increased demand for services. The meeting came a day after councillors in Nottingham passed a range of swingeing budget cuts on Monday night, with some people reduced to tears as they voted in favour of the proposals. Labour councillors in Nottingham said they did not agree with the cuts – which include council redundancies, reduced funding for youth services and adult social care and a review of libraries – but the intervention of government commissioners and the duty to create a legal budget had tied their hands. David Mellen, the leader of the Labour council, told the meeting: “This is a day that will be remembered by our city for all the wrong reasons. “I stand here to record the fact I do not believe in this budget. I am aware the decision we will make will have an impact that will last many years.” One Labour councillor, Shuguftah Quddoos, who is also the Sheriff of Nottingham, has been suspended from the party after she refused to vote in favour of the cuts. In a statement, the Labour party said: “The council has a duty to set a legal and balanced budget and we expect all Labour group members to support proposals to set a responsible and legal budget.” Explore more on these topics Birmingham Local politics Council tax news Share Reuse this content An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images View image in fullscreen An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images View image in fullscreen An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images View image in fullscreen An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images View image in fullscreen An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images An aerial view of Birmingham public library. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Birmingham council approves biggest budget cuts in local authority history This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Birmingham council approves biggest budget cuts in local authority history This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Birmingham council approves biggest budget cuts in local authority history This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Up to 600 council jobs to be lost, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly Up to 600 council jobs to be lost, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly Up to 600 council jobs to be lost, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly Councillors in Birmingham have approved what are thought to be the biggest budget cuts in local authority history, with residents warning that the consequences could be “disastrous” for the city. Birmingham city council met on Tuesday afternoon to debate and vote on a proposed set of cuts that will see the loss of up to 600 council jobs, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly. They also include funding cuts to adult social care, children’s services, flood defences and highway maintenance, while street lights across the city will be dimmed. The Labour-run council also approved a 10% council tax increase for the upcoming financial year, after being granted special permission from the government to increase the rate above the national cap on account of the council declaring itself effectively bankrupt in September. Addressing the council chamber at the start of a heated five-hour debate, the leader, John Cotton, said he “unreservedly apologised to the people of the city” for the “unprecedented scale of cuts”. “I am under no illusion what this budget will mean for our communities,” he said. “The decisions we must make here today will have a lasting impact on every single neighbourhood in Birmingham and that weighs heavily on me.” Cotton said he took responsibility for “Birmingham-specific problems” and urged the government to launch an independent inquiry into what went wrong at the council. But he also blamed the “forest fire raging through local government” and asked, “Who is going to apologise for the prolonged Conservative-led neglect that has brought so many councils to the brink?” Nearly one in five council leaders in England said they were likely to declare bankruptcy in the next 15 months. Robert Alden, the leader of the opposition Conservative group in Birmingham, said the council were “making the biggest ever cuts to services, for Labour’s biggest ever council failure”. “Labour hope residents will believe them when they claim it wasn’t their fault,” he said, alleging the council ignored warnings about the state of the city’s finances. Residents across Birmingham have raised alarm at the impact the cuts could have on local communities, particularly on youth services, libraries, arts organisations and charities supporting vulnerable people. “I think this could be potentially disastrous for the city,” said Lawrence Barton, a business owner and director of Birmingham Pride, which has had its council sponsorship scrapped. “These cuts feel monumental, and people in the city are reeling over it. I’ve had businesses in the city now for over 25 years, and it’s never felt so bleak.” As the full council meeting was under way, dozens of protesters from unions and community groups gathered outside the building chanting “No to cuts”. Birmingham city council issued a section 114 notice, effectively declaring itself bankrupt, in September, with an estimated £300m of savings needed to balance the books. This was largely attributed to a £100m bill to fix the failed installation of a new IT system and a £700m liability for equal pay claims, but councillors have also blamed national government funding cuts at a time of increased demand for services. The meeting came a day after councillors in Nottingham passed a range of swingeing budget cuts on Monday night, with some people reduced to tears as they voted in favour of the proposals. Labour councillors in Nottingham said they did not agree with the cuts – which include council redundancies, reduced funding for youth services and adult social care and a review of libraries – but the intervention of government commissioners and the duty to create a legal budget had tied their hands. David Mellen, the leader of the Labour council, told the meeting: “This is a day that will be remembered by our city for all the wrong reasons. “I stand here to record the fact I do not believe in this budget. I am aware the decision we will make will have an impact that will last many years.” One Labour councillor, Shuguftah Quddoos, who is also the Sheriff of Nottingham, has been suspended from the party after she refused to vote in favour of the cuts. In a statement, the Labour party said: “The council has a duty to set a legal and balanced budget and we expect all Labour group members to support proposals to set a responsible and legal budget.” Explore more on these topics Birmingham Local politics Council tax news Share Reuse this content Councillors in Birmingham have approved what are thought to be the biggest budget cuts in local authority history, with residents warning that the consequences could be “disastrous” for the city. Birmingham city council met on Tuesday afternoon to debate and vote on a proposed set of cuts that will see the loss of up to 600 council jobs, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly. They also include funding cuts to adult social care, children’s services, flood defences and highway maintenance, while street lights across the city will be dimmed. The Labour-run council also approved a 10% council tax increase for the upcoming financial year, after being granted special permission from the government to increase the rate above the national cap on account of the council declaring itself effectively bankrupt in September. Addressing the council chamber at the start of a heated five-hour debate, the leader, John Cotton, said he “unreservedly apologised to the people of the city” for the “unprecedented scale of cuts”. “I am under no illusion what this budget will mean for our communities,” he said. “The decisions we must make here today will have a lasting impact on every single neighbourhood in Birmingham and that weighs heavily on me.” Cotton said he took responsibility for “Birmingham-specific problems” and urged the government to launch an independent inquiry into what went wrong at the council. But he also blamed the “forest fire raging through local government” and asked, “Who is going to apologise for the prolonged Conservative-led neglect that has brought so many councils to the brink?” Nearly one in five council leaders in England said they were likely to declare bankruptcy in the next 15 months. Robert Alden, the leader of the opposition Conservative group in Birmingham, said the council were “making the biggest ever cuts to services, for Labour’s biggest ever council failure”. “Labour hope residents will believe them when they claim it wasn’t their fault,” he said, alleging the council ignored warnings about the state of the city’s finances. Residents across Birmingham have raised alarm at the impact the cuts could have on local communities, particularly on youth services, libraries, arts organisations and charities supporting vulnerable people. “I think this could be potentially disastrous for the city,” said Lawrence Barton, a business owner and director of Birmingham Pride, which has had its council sponsorship scrapped. “These cuts feel monumental, and people in the city are reeling over it. I’ve had businesses in the city now for over 25 years, and it’s never felt so bleak.” As the full council meeting was under way, dozens of protesters from unions and community groups gathered outside the building chanting “No to cuts”. Birmingham city council issued a section 114 notice, effectively declaring itself bankrupt, in September, with an estimated £300m of savings needed to balance the books. This was largely attributed to a £100m bill to fix the failed installation of a new IT system and a £700m liability for equal pay claims, but councillors have also blamed national government funding cuts at a time of increased demand for services. The meeting came a day after councillors in Nottingham passed a range of swingeing budget cuts on Monday night, with some people reduced to tears as they voted in favour of the proposals. Labour councillors in Nottingham said they did not agree with the cuts – which include council redundancies, reduced funding for youth services and adult social care and a review of libraries – but the intervention of government commissioners and the duty to create a legal budget had tied their hands. David Mellen, the leader of the Labour council, told the meeting: “This is a day that will be remembered by our city for all the wrong reasons. “I stand here to record the fact I do not believe in this budget. I am aware the decision we will make will have an impact that will last many years.” One Labour councillor, Shuguftah Quddoos, who is also the Sheriff of Nottingham, has been suspended from the party after she refused to vote in favour of the cuts. In a statement, the Labour party said: “The council has a duty to set a legal and balanced budget and we expect all Labour group members to support proposals to set a responsible and legal budget.” Explore more on these topics Birmingham Local politics Council tax news Share Reuse this content Councillors in Birmingham have approved what are thought to be the biggest budget cuts in local authority history, with residents warning that the consequences could be “disastrous” for the city. Birmingham city council met on Tuesday afternoon to debate and vote on a proposed set of cuts that will see the loss of up to 600 council jobs, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly. They also include funding cuts to adult social care, children’s services, flood defences and highway maintenance, while street lights across the city will be dimmed. The Labour-run council also approved a 10% council tax increase for the upcoming financial year, after being granted special permission from the government to increase the rate above the national cap on account of the council declaring itself effectively bankrupt in September. Addressing the council chamber at the start of a heated five-hour debate, the leader, John Cotton, said he “unreservedly apologised to the people of the city” for the “unprecedented scale of cuts”. “I am under no illusion what this budget will mean for our communities,” he said. “The decisions we must make here today will have a lasting impact on every single neighbourhood in Birmingham and that weighs heavily on me.” Cotton said he took responsibility for “Birmingham-specific problems” and urged the government to launch an independent inquiry into what went wrong at the council. But he also blamed the “forest fire raging through local government” and asked, “Who is going to apologise for the prolonged Conservative-led neglect that has brought so many councils to the brink?” Nearly one in five council leaders in England said they were likely to declare bankruptcy in the next 15 months. Robert Alden, the leader of the opposition Conservative group in Birmingham, said the council were “making the biggest ever cuts to services, for Labour’s biggest ever council failure”. “Labour hope residents will believe them when they claim it wasn’t their fault,” he said, alleging the council ignored warnings about the state of the city’s finances. Residents across Birmingham have raised alarm at the impact the cuts could have on local communities, particularly on youth services, libraries, arts organisations and charities supporting vulnerable people. “I think this could be potentially disastrous for the city,” said Lawrence Barton, a business owner and director of Birmingham Pride, which has had its council sponsorship scrapped. “These cuts feel monumental, and people in the city are reeling over it. I’ve had businesses in the city now for over 25 years, and it’s never felt so bleak.” As the full council meeting was under way, dozens of protesters from unions and community groups gathered outside the building chanting “No to cuts”. Birmingham city council issued a section 114 notice, effectively declaring itself bankrupt, in September, with an estimated £300m of savings needed to balance the books. This was largely attributed to a £100m bill to fix the failed installation of a new IT system and a £700m liability for equal pay claims, but councillors have also blamed national government funding cuts at a time of increased demand for services. The meeting came a day after councillors in Nottingham passed a range of swingeing budget cuts on Monday night, with some people reduced to tears as they voted in favour of the proposals. Labour councillors in Nottingham said they did not agree with the cuts – which include council redundancies, reduced funding for youth services and adult social care and a review of libraries – but the intervention of government commissioners and the duty to create a legal budget had tied their hands. David Mellen, the leader of the Labour council, told the meeting: “This is a day that will be remembered by our city for all the wrong reasons. “I stand here to record the fact I do not believe in this budget. I am aware the decision we will make will have an impact that will last many years.” One Labour councillor, Shuguftah Quddoos, who is also the Sheriff of Nottingham, has been suspended from the party after she refused to vote in favour of the cuts. In a statement, the Labour party said: “The council has a duty to set a legal and balanced budget and we expect all Labour group members to support proposals to set a responsible and legal budget.” Councillors in Birmingham have approved what are thought to be the biggest budget cuts in local authority history, with residents warning that the consequences could be “disastrous” for the city. Birmingham city council met on Tuesday afternoon to debate and vote on a proposed set of cuts that will see the loss of up to 600 council jobs, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly. They also include funding cuts to adult social care, children’s services, flood defences and highway maintenance, while street lights across the city will be dimmed. The Labour-run council also approved a 10% council tax increase for the upcoming financial year, after being granted special permission from the government to increase the rate above the national cap on account of the council declaring itself effectively bankrupt in September. Addressing the council chamber at the start of a heated five-hour debate, the leader, John Cotton, said he “unreservedly apologised to the people of the city” for the “unprecedented scale of cuts”. “I am under no illusion what this budget will mean for our communities,” he said. “The decisions we must make here today will have a lasting impact on every single neighbourhood in Birmingham and that weighs heavily on me.” Cotton said he took responsibility for “Birmingham-specific problems” and urged the government to launch an independent inquiry into what went wrong at the council. But he also blamed the “forest fire raging through local government” and asked, “Who is going to apologise for the prolonged Conservative-led neglect that has brought so many councils to the brink?” Nearly one in five council leaders in England said they were likely to declare bankruptcy in the next 15 months. Robert Alden, the leader of the opposition Conservative group in Birmingham, said the council were “making the biggest ever cuts to services, for Labour’s biggest ever council failure”. “Labour hope residents will believe them when they claim it wasn’t their fault,” he said, alleging the council ignored warnings about the state of the city’s finances. Residents across Birmingham have raised alarm at the impact the cuts could have on local communities, particularly on youth services, libraries, arts organisations and charities supporting vulnerable people. “I think this could be potentially disastrous for the city,” said Lawrence Barton, a business owner and director of Birmingham Pride, which has had its council sponsorship scrapped. “These cuts feel monumental, and people in the city are reeling over it. I’ve had businesses in the city now for over 25 years, and it’s never felt so bleak.” As the full council meeting was under way, dozens of protesters from unions and community groups gathered outside the building chanting “No to cuts”. Birmingham city council issued a section 114 notice, effectively declaring itself bankrupt, in September, with an estimated £300m of savings needed to balance the books. This was largely attributed to a £100m bill to fix the failed installation of a new IT system and a £700m liability for equal pay claims, but councillors have also blamed national government funding cuts at a time of increased demand for services. The meeting came a day after councillors in Nottingham passed a range of swingeing budget cuts on Monday night, with some people reduced to tears as they voted in favour of the proposals. Labour councillors in Nottingham said they did not agree with the cuts – which include council redundancies, reduced funding for youth services and adult social care and a review of libraries – but the intervention of government commissioners and the duty to create a legal budget had tied their hands. David Mellen, the leader of the Labour council, told the meeting: “This is a day that will be remembered by our city for all the wrong reasons. “I stand here to record the fact I do not believe in this budget. I am aware the decision we will make will have an impact that will last many years.” One Labour councillor, Shuguftah Quddoos, who is also the Sheriff of Nottingham, has been suspended from the party after she refused to vote in favour of the cuts. In a statement, the Labour party said: “The council has a duty to set a legal and balanced budget and we expect all Labour group members to support proposals to set a responsible and legal budget.” Councillors in Birmingham have approved what are thought to be the biggest budget cuts in local authority history, with residents warning that the consequences could be “disastrous” for the city. Birmingham city council met on Tuesday afternoon to debate and vote on a proposed set of cuts that will see the loss of up to 600 council jobs, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly. They also include funding cuts to adult social care, children’s services, flood defences and highway maintenance, while street lights across the city will be dimmed. The Labour-run council also approved a 10% council tax increase for the upcoming financial year, after being granted special permission from the government to increase the rate above the national cap on account of the council declaring itself effectively bankrupt in September. Addressing the council chamber at the start of a heated five-hour debate, the leader, John Cotton, said he “unreservedly apologised to the people of the city” for the “unprecedented scale of cuts”. “I am under no illusion what this budget will mean for our communities,” he said. “The decisions we must make here today will have a lasting impact on every single neighbourhood in Birmingham and that weighs heavily on me.” Cotton said he took responsibility for “Birmingham-specific problems” and urged the government to launch an independent inquiry into what went wrong at the council. But he also blamed the “forest fire raging through local government” and asked, “Who is going to apologise for the prolonged Conservative-led neglect that has brought so many councils to the brink?” Nearly one in five council leaders in England said they were likely to declare bankruptcy in the next 15 months. Robert Alden, the leader of the opposition Conservative group in Birmingham, said the council were “making the biggest ever cuts to services, for Labour’s biggest ever council failure”. “Labour hope residents will believe them when they claim it wasn’t their fault,” he said, alleging the council ignored warnings about the state of the city’s finances. Residents across Birmingham have raised alarm at the impact the cuts could have on local communities, particularly on youth services, libraries, arts organisations and charities supporting vulnerable people. “I think this could be potentially disastrous for the city,” said Lawrence Barton, a business owner and director of Birmingham Pride, which has had its council sponsorship scrapped. “These cuts feel monumental, and people in the city are reeling over it. I’ve had businesses in the city now for over 25 years, and it’s never felt so bleak.” As the full council meeting was under way, dozens of protesters from unions and community groups gathered outside the building chanting “No to cuts”. Birmingham city council issued a section 114 notice, effectively declaring itself bankrupt, in September, with an estimated £300m of savings needed to balance the books. This was largely attributed to a £100m bill to fix the failed installation of a new IT system and a £700m liability for equal pay claims, but councillors have also blamed national government funding cuts at a time of increased demand for services. The meeting came a day after councillors in Nottingham passed a range of swingeing budget cuts on Monday night, with some people reduced to tears as they voted in favour of the proposals. Labour councillors in Nottingham said they did not agree with the cuts – which include council redundancies, reduced funding for youth services and adult social care and a review of libraries – but the intervention of government commissioners and the duty to create a legal budget had tied their hands. David Mellen, the leader of the Labour council, told the meeting: “This is a day that will be remembered by our city for all the wrong reasons. “I stand here to record the fact I do not believe in this budget. I am aware the decision we will make will have an impact that will last many years.” One Labour councillor, Shuguftah Quddoos, who is also the Sheriff of Nottingham, has been suspended from the party after she refused to vote in favour of the cuts. In a statement, the Labour party said: “The council has a duty to set a legal and balanced budget and we expect all Labour group members to support proposals to set a responsible and legal budget.” Explore more on these topics Birmingham Local politics Council tax news Share Reuse this content Birmingham Local politics Council tax news |
Leftwing group claim responsibility for Tesla factory arson attack in Berlin
Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP View image in fullscreen Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP This article is more than 1 year old Leftwing group claim responsibility for Tesla factory arson attack in Berlin This article is more than 1 year old Vulkan activist group release 2,500 word letter claiming it set fire to pylon at factory that produces half a million electric cars a year Leftwing extremists have claimed responsibility for a dawn arson attack on an electricity pylon at the Tesla car factory in Berlin, which bosses said would halt production until the end of the week. In a 2,500-word letter released on Tuesday, the Vulkan (volcano) activist group claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the factory, which produces about 500,000 electric cars a year, consumed both natural resources and labour and was neither ecological or sustainable. Electric cars have come under increasing attack by environmental activists , in particular over concerns that their production leads to higher emissions than the manufacture of internal combustion engine cars and that the production and recharging of electric car batteries constitute environmental burden. In targeted attacks around Europe, including in Germany, electric cars have had their tyres slashed or deflated. Locally there has been much debate about the high usage of groundwater by the company in a region that has been suffering from drought for several years as well as dismay over the amount of forest that has been felled to make way for the factory premises. View image in fullscreen A view of tree houses set up by activists near the Tesla Gigafactory. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP A protest camp of environmentalists campaigning against proposals to fell further trees for expansion plans, set up around a week ago, building tree houses in the forest. However, they distanced themselves from the arson attack. In a press conference on Tuesday, Tesla bosses said the damages ran into hundreds of millions of euros and would cause production to halt until the end of the week. The electricity outage affected the factory as well as surrounding communities in the state of Brandenburg. The factory had to be evacuated in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Tesla boss, Elon Musk, wrote on X: “These are either the dumbest eco-terrorists on Earth or they’re puppets of those who don’t have good environmental goals.” He added: “Stopping production of electric vehicles, rather than fossil fuel vehicles, ist extrem dumm,” he said, switching to the German phrase meaning “extremely dumb”. Brandenburg’s interior minister, Michael Stübgen, said that the judicial authorities would “severely punish” those found to have been behind the sabotage. “If the initial findings are confirmed, this is a perfidious attack on our electricity infrastructure,” he said, which had caused tens of thousands of people to be “cut of from basic services and put in danger”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Tesla recently announced plans to expand the works, so far the only ones in Europe, which opened two years ago and employs about 12,500 workers, including thousands of Poles and Ukrainian refugees. A local referendum last month rejected the plan – which includes building a kindergarten for workers’ children, improving roads to the plant, and the construction of a freight depot. The vote result is not legally binding but Tesla bosses and mediators said they would try to work with the community to find a solution. Tesla’s shares, which are listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange, fell by 2.8% following news of the fire and its likely effect on production. The incident is just the latest in a series of challenges for Tesla, which has faced a backlash from trade unions seeking collective bargaining agreements for workers in the Nordic countries as well as supply chain issues, due to Houthi rebel attacks on shipping in the Red Sea which earlier this year forced it to halt production for a fortnight. Police said they had launched a criminal investigation into the fire and were checking the authenticity of the letter, which had been signed Água De Pau, the name of a volcanic mountain in the Azores. In 2021, the Vulkan group claimed responsibility for an arson attack on a transmitter tower at the then building site of the Tesla factory, accusing the company of being “neither ecological nor socially just”. Explore more on these topics Tesla Germany Europe Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars Ethical and green living news Share Reuse this content Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP View image in fullscreen Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP This article is more than 1 year old Leftwing group claim responsibility for Tesla factory arson attack in Berlin This article is more than 1 year old Vulkan activist group release 2,500 word letter claiming it set fire to pylon at factory that produces half a million electric cars a year Leftwing extremists have claimed responsibility for a dawn arson attack on an electricity pylon at the Tesla car factory in Berlin, which bosses said would halt production until the end of the week. In a 2,500-word letter released on Tuesday, the Vulkan (volcano) activist group claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the factory, which produces about 500,000 electric cars a year, consumed both natural resources and labour and was neither ecological or sustainable. Electric cars have come under increasing attack by environmental activists , in particular over concerns that their production leads to higher emissions than the manufacture of internal combustion engine cars and that the production and recharging of electric car batteries constitute environmental burden. In targeted attacks around Europe, including in Germany, electric cars have had their tyres slashed or deflated. Locally there has been much debate about the high usage of groundwater by the company in a region that has been suffering from drought for several years as well as dismay over the amount of forest that has been felled to make way for the factory premises. View image in fullscreen A view of tree houses set up by activists near the Tesla Gigafactory. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP A protest camp of environmentalists campaigning against proposals to fell further trees for expansion plans, set up around a week ago, building tree houses in the forest. However, they distanced themselves from the arson attack. In a press conference on Tuesday, Tesla bosses said the damages ran into hundreds of millions of euros and would cause production to halt until the end of the week. The electricity outage affected the factory as well as surrounding communities in the state of Brandenburg. The factory had to be evacuated in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Tesla boss, Elon Musk, wrote on X: “These are either the dumbest eco-terrorists on Earth or they’re puppets of those who don’t have good environmental goals.” He added: “Stopping production of electric vehicles, rather than fossil fuel vehicles, ist extrem dumm,” he said, switching to the German phrase meaning “extremely dumb”. Brandenburg’s interior minister, Michael Stübgen, said that the judicial authorities would “severely punish” those found to have been behind the sabotage. “If the initial findings are confirmed, this is a perfidious attack on our electricity infrastructure,” he said, which had caused tens of thousands of people to be “cut of from basic services and put in danger”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Tesla recently announced plans to expand the works, so far the only ones in Europe, which opened two years ago and employs about 12,500 workers, including thousands of Poles and Ukrainian refugees. A local referendum last month rejected the plan – which includes building a kindergarten for workers’ children, improving roads to the plant, and the construction of a freight depot. The vote result is not legally binding but Tesla bosses and mediators said they would try to work with the community to find a solution. Tesla’s shares, which are listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange, fell by 2.8% following news of the fire and its likely effect on production. The incident is just the latest in a series of challenges for Tesla, which has faced a backlash from trade unions seeking collective bargaining agreements for workers in the Nordic countries as well as supply chain issues, due to Houthi rebel attacks on shipping in the Red Sea which earlier this year forced it to halt production for a fortnight. Police said they had launched a criminal investigation into the fire and were checking the authenticity of the letter, which had been signed Água De Pau, the name of a volcanic mountain in the Azores. In 2021, the Vulkan group claimed responsibility for an arson attack on a transmitter tower at the then building site of the Tesla factory, accusing the company of being “neither ecological nor socially just”. Explore more on these topics Tesla Germany Europe Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars Ethical and green living news Share Reuse this content Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP View image in fullscreen Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP View image in fullscreen Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP View image in fullscreen Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP View image in fullscreen Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP Police officers work next to a damaged pylon at the Tesla Gigafactory for electric cars in Gruenheide near Berlin on Tuesday. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP This article is more than 1 year old Leftwing group claim responsibility for Tesla factory arson attack in Berlin This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Leftwing group claim responsibility for Tesla factory arson attack in Berlin This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Leftwing group claim responsibility for Tesla factory arson attack in Berlin This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Vulkan activist group release 2,500 word letter claiming it set fire to pylon at factory that produces half a million electric cars a year Vulkan activist group release 2,500 word letter claiming it set fire to pylon at factory that produces half a million electric cars a year Vulkan activist group release 2,500 word letter claiming it set fire to pylon at factory that produces half a million electric cars a year Leftwing extremists have claimed responsibility for a dawn arson attack on an electricity pylon at the Tesla car factory in Berlin, which bosses said would halt production until the end of the week. In a 2,500-word letter released on Tuesday, the Vulkan (volcano) activist group claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the factory, which produces about 500,000 electric cars a year, consumed both natural resources and labour and was neither ecological or sustainable. Electric cars have come under increasing attack by environmental activists , in particular over concerns that their production leads to higher emissions than the manufacture of internal combustion engine cars and that the production and recharging of electric car batteries constitute environmental burden. In targeted attacks around Europe, including in Germany, electric cars have had their tyres slashed or deflated. Locally there has been much debate about the high usage of groundwater by the company in a region that has been suffering from drought for several years as well as dismay over the amount of forest that has been felled to make way for the factory premises. View image in fullscreen A view of tree houses set up by activists near the Tesla Gigafactory. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP A protest camp of environmentalists campaigning against proposals to fell further trees for expansion plans, set up around a week ago, building tree houses in the forest. However, they distanced themselves from the arson attack. In a press conference on Tuesday, Tesla bosses said the damages ran into hundreds of millions of euros and would cause production to halt until the end of the week. The electricity outage affected the factory as well as surrounding communities in the state of Brandenburg. The factory had to be evacuated in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Tesla boss, Elon Musk, wrote on X: “These are either the dumbest eco-terrorists on Earth or they’re puppets of those who don’t have good environmental goals.” He added: “Stopping production of electric vehicles, rather than fossil fuel vehicles, ist extrem dumm,” he said, switching to the German phrase meaning “extremely dumb”. Brandenburg’s interior minister, Michael Stübgen, said that the judicial authorities would “severely punish” those found to have been behind the sabotage. “If the initial findings are confirmed, this is a perfidious attack on our electricity infrastructure,” he said, which had caused tens of thousands of people to be “cut of from basic services and put in danger”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Tesla recently announced plans to expand the works, so far the only ones in Europe, which opened two years ago and employs about 12,500 workers, including thousands of Poles and Ukrainian refugees. A local referendum last month rejected the plan – which includes building a kindergarten for workers’ children, improving roads to the plant, and the construction of a freight depot. The vote result is not legally binding but Tesla bosses and mediators said they would try to work with the community to find a solution. Tesla’s shares, which are listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange, fell by 2.8% following news of the fire and its likely effect on production. The incident is just the latest in a series of challenges for Tesla, which has faced a backlash from trade unions seeking collective bargaining agreements for workers in the Nordic countries as well as supply chain issues, due to Houthi rebel attacks on shipping in the Red Sea which earlier this year forced it to halt production for a fortnight. Police said they had launched a criminal investigation into the fire and were checking the authenticity of the letter, which had been signed Água De Pau, the name of a volcanic mountain in the Azores. In 2021, the Vulkan group claimed responsibility for an arson attack on a transmitter tower at the then building site of the Tesla factory, accusing the company of being “neither ecological nor socially just”. Explore more on these topics Tesla Germany Europe Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars Ethical and green living news Share Reuse this content Leftwing extremists have claimed responsibility for a dawn arson attack on an electricity pylon at the Tesla car factory in Berlin, which bosses said would halt production until the end of the week. In a 2,500-word letter released on Tuesday, the Vulkan (volcano) activist group claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the factory, which produces about 500,000 electric cars a year, consumed both natural resources and labour and was neither ecological or sustainable. Electric cars have come under increasing attack by environmental activists , in particular over concerns that their production leads to higher emissions than the manufacture of internal combustion engine cars and that the production and recharging of electric car batteries constitute environmental burden. In targeted attacks around Europe, including in Germany, electric cars have had their tyres slashed or deflated. Locally there has been much debate about the high usage of groundwater by the company in a region that has been suffering from drought for several years as well as dismay over the amount of forest that has been felled to make way for the factory premises. View image in fullscreen A view of tree houses set up by activists near the Tesla Gigafactory. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP A protest camp of environmentalists campaigning against proposals to fell further trees for expansion plans, set up around a week ago, building tree houses in the forest. However, they distanced themselves from the arson attack. In a press conference on Tuesday, Tesla bosses said the damages ran into hundreds of millions of euros and would cause production to halt until the end of the week. The electricity outage affected the factory as well as surrounding communities in the state of Brandenburg. The factory had to be evacuated in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Tesla boss, Elon Musk, wrote on X: “These are either the dumbest eco-terrorists on Earth or they’re puppets of those who don’t have good environmental goals.” He added: “Stopping production of electric vehicles, rather than fossil fuel vehicles, ist extrem dumm,” he said, switching to the German phrase meaning “extremely dumb”. Brandenburg’s interior minister, Michael Stübgen, said that the judicial authorities would “severely punish” those found to have been behind the sabotage. “If the initial findings are confirmed, this is a perfidious attack on our electricity infrastructure,” he said, which had caused tens of thousands of people to be “cut of from basic services and put in danger”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Tesla recently announced plans to expand the works, so far the only ones in Europe, which opened two years ago and employs about 12,500 workers, including thousands of Poles and Ukrainian refugees. A local referendum last month rejected the plan – which includes building a kindergarten for workers’ children, improving roads to the plant, and the construction of a freight depot. The vote result is not legally binding but Tesla bosses and mediators said they would try to work with the community to find a solution. Tesla’s shares, which are listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange, fell by 2.8% following news of the fire and its likely effect on production. The incident is just the latest in a series of challenges for Tesla, which has faced a backlash from trade unions seeking collective bargaining agreements for workers in the Nordic countries as well as supply chain issues, due to Houthi rebel attacks on shipping in the Red Sea which earlier this year forced it to halt production for a fortnight. Police said they had launched a criminal investigation into the fire and were checking the authenticity of the letter, which had been signed Água De Pau, the name of a volcanic mountain in the Azores. In 2021, the Vulkan group claimed responsibility for an arson attack on a transmitter tower at the then building site of the Tesla factory, accusing the company of being “neither ecological nor socially just”. Explore more on these topics Tesla Germany Europe Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars Ethical and green living news Share Reuse this content Leftwing extremists have claimed responsibility for a dawn arson attack on an electricity pylon at the Tesla car factory in Berlin, which bosses said would halt production until the end of the week. In a 2,500-word letter released on Tuesday, the Vulkan (volcano) activist group claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the factory, which produces about 500,000 electric cars a year, consumed both natural resources and labour and was neither ecological or sustainable. Electric cars have come under increasing attack by environmental activists , in particular over concerns that their production leads to higher emissions than the manufacture of internal combustion engine cars and that the production and recharging of electric car batteries constitute environmental burden. In targeted attacks around Europe, including in Germany, electric cars have had their tyres slashed or deflated. Locally there has been much debate about the high usage of groundwater by the company in a region that has been suffering from drought for several years as well as dismay over the amount of forest that has been felled to make way for the factory premises. View image in fullscreen A view of tree houses set up by activists near the Tesla Gigafactory. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP A protest camp of environmentalists campaigning against proposals to fell further trees for expansion plans, set up around a week ago, building tree houses in the forest. However, they distanced themselves from the arson attack. In a press conference on Tuesday, Tesla bosses said the damages ran into hundreds of millions of euros and would cause production to halt until the end of the week. The electricity outage affected the factory as well as surrounding communities in the state of Brandenburg. The factory had to be evacuated in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Tesla boss, Elon Musk, wrote on X: “These are either the dumbest eco-terrorists on Earth or they’re puppets of those who don’t have good environmental goals.” He added: “Stopping production of electric vehicles, rather than fossil fuel vehicles, ist extrem dumm,” he said, switching to the German phrase meaning “extremely dumb”. Brandenburg’s interior minister, Michael Stübgen, said that the judicial authorities would “severely punish” those found to have been behind the sabotage. “If the initial findings are confirmed, this is a perfidious attack on our electricity infrastructure,” he said, which had caused tens of thousands of people to be “cut of from basic services and put in danger”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Tesla recently announced plans to expand the works, so far the only ones in Europe, which opened two years ago and employs about 12,500 workers, including thousands of Poles and Ukrainian refugees. A local referendum last month rejected the plan – which includes building a kindergarten for workers’ children, improving roads to the plant, and the construction of a freight depot. The vote result is not legally binding but Tesla bosses and mediators said they would try to work with the community to find a solution. Tesla’s shares, which are listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange, fell by 2.8% following news of the fire and its likely effect on production. The incident is just the latest in a series of challenges for Tesla, which has faced a backlash from trade unions seeking collective bargaining agreements for workers in the Nordic countries as well as supply chain issues, due to Houthi rebel attacks on shipping in the Red Sea which earlier this year forced it to halt production for a fortnight. Police said they had launched a criminal investigation into the fire and were checking the authenticity of the letter, which had been signed Água De Pau, the name of a volcanic mountain in the Azores. In 2021, the Vulkan group claimed responsibility for an arson attack on a transmitter tower at the then building site of the Tesla factory, accusing the company of being “neither ecological nor socially just”. Leftwing extremists have claimed responsibility for a dawn arson attack on an electricity pylon at the Tesla car factory in Berlin, which bosses said would halt production until the end of the week. In a 2,500-word letter released on Tuesday, the Vulkan (volcano) activist group claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the factory, which produces about 500,000 electric cars a year, consumed both natural resources and labour and was neither ecological or sustainable. Electric cars have come under increasing attack by environmental activists , in particular over concerns that their production leads to higher emissions than the manufacture of internal combustion engine cars and that the production and recharging of electric car batteries constitute environmental burden. In targeted attacks around Europe, including in Germany, electric cars have had their tyres slashed or deflated. Locally there has been much debate about the high usage of groundwater by the company in a region that has been suffering from drought for several years as well as dismay over the amount of forest that has been felled to make way for the factory premises. View image in fullscreen A view of tree houses set up by activists near the Tesla Gigafactory. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP A protest camp of environmentalists campaigning against proposals to fell further trees for expansion plans, set up around a week ago, building tree houses in the forest. However, they distanced themselves from the arson attack. In a press conference on Tuesday, Tesla bosses said the damages ran into hundreds of millions of euros and would cause production to halt until the end of the week. The electricity outage affected the factory as well as surrounding communities in the state of Brandenburg. The factory had to be evacuated in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Tesla boss, Elon Musk, wrote on X: “These are either the dumbest eco-terrorists on Earth or they’re puppets of those who don’t have good environmental goals.” He added: “Stopping production of electric vehicles, rather than fossil fuel vehicles, ist extrem dumm,” he said, switching to the German phrase meaning “extremely dumb”. Brandenburg’s interior minister, Michael Stübgen, said that the judicial authorities would “severely punish” those found to have been behind the sabotage. “If the initial findings are confirmed, this is a perfidious attack on our electricity infrastructure,” he said, which had caused tens of thousands of people to be “cut of from basic services and put in danger”. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Tesla recently announced plans to expand the works, so far the only ones in Europe, which opened two years ago and employs about 12,500 workers, including thousands of Poles and Ukrainian refugees. A local referendum last month rejected the plan – which includes building a kindergarten for workers’ children, improving roads to the plant, and the construction of a freight depot. The vote result is not legally binding but Tesla bosses and mediators said they would try to work with the community to find a solution. Tesla’s shares, which are listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange, fell by 2.8% following news of the fire and its likely effect on production. The incident is just the latest in a series of challenges for Tesla, which has faced a backlash from trade unions seeking collective bargaining agreements for workers in the Nordic countries as well as supply chain issues, due to Houthi rebel attacks on shipping in the Red Sea which earlier this year forced it to halt production for a fortnight. Police said they had launched a criminal investigation into the fire and were checking the authenticity of the letter, which had been signed Água De Pau, the name of a volcanic mountain in the Azores. In 2021, the Vulkan group claimed responsibility for an arson attack on a transmitter tower at the then building site of the Tesla factory, accusing the company of being “neither ecological nor socially just”. Leftwing extremists have claimed responsibility for a dawn arson attack on an electricity pylon at the Tesla car factory in Berlin, which bosses said would halt production until the end of the week. In a 2,500-word letter released on Tuesday, the Vulkan (volcano) activist group claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the factory, which produces about 500,000 electric cars a year, consumed both natural resources and labour and was neither ecological or sustainable. Electric cars have come under increasing attack by environmental activists , in particular over concerns that their production leads to higher emissions than the manufacture of internal combustion engine cars and that the production and recharging of electric car batteries constitute environmental burden. In targeted attacks around Europe, including in Germany, electric cars have had their tyres slashed or deflated. Locally there has been much debate about the high usage of groundwater by the company in a region that has been suffering from drought for several years as well as dismay over the amount of forest that has been felled to make way for the factory premises. A protest camp of environmentalists campaigning against proposals to fell further trees for expansion plans, set up around a week ago, building tree houses in the forest. However, they distanced themselves from the arson attack. In a press conference on Tuesday, Tesla bosses said the damages ran into hundreds of millions of euros and would cause production to halt until the end of the week. The electricity outage affected the factory as well as surrounding communities in the state of Brandenburg. The factory had to be evacuated in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Tesla boss, Elon Musk, wrote on X: “These are either the dumbest eco-terrorists on Earth or they’re puppets of those who don’t have good environmental goals.” He added: “Stopping production of electric vehicles, rather than fossil fuel vehicles, ist extrem dumm,” he said, switching to the German phrase meaning “extremely dumb”. Brandenburg’s interior minister, Michael Stübgen, said that the judicial authorities would “severely punish” those found to have been behind the sabotage. “If the initial findings are confirmed, this is a perfidious attack on our electricity infrastructure,” he said, which had caused tens of thousands of people to be “cut of from basic services and put in danger”. Tesla recently announced plans to expand the works, so far the only ones in Europe, which opened two years ago and employs about 12,500 workers, including thousands of Poles and Ukrainian refugees. A local referendum last month rejected the plan – which includes building a kindergarten for workers’ children, improving roads to the plant, and the construction of a freight depot. The vote result is not legally binding but Tesla bosses and mediators said they would try to work with the community to find a solution. Tesla’s shares, which are listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange, fell by 2.8% following news of the fire and its likely effect on production. The incident is just the latest in a series of challenges for Tesla, which has faced a backlash from trade unions seeking collective bargaining agreements for workers in the Nordic countries as well as supply chain issues, due to Houthi rebel attacks on shipping in the Red Sea which earlier this year forced it to halt production for a fortnight. Police said they had launched a criminal investigation into the fire and were checking the authenticity of the letter, which had been signed Água De Pau, the name of a volcanic mountain in the Azores. In 2021, the Vulkan group claimed responsibility for an arson attack on a transmitter tower at the then building site of the Tesla factory, accusing the company of being “neither ecological nor socially just”. Explore more on these topics Tesla Germany Europe Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars Ethical and green living news Share Reuse this content Tesla Germany Europe Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars Ethical and green living news |
Writers puzzled after State Library Victoria cancels workshops for teens citing ‘child and cultural safety’
Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore View image in fullscreen Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore This article is more than 1 year old Writers puzzled after State Library Victoria cancels workshops for teens citing ‘child and cultural safety’ This article is more than 1 year old Omar Sakr, Jinghua Qian and Alison Evans have been left to speculate on whether cancellations relate to their pro-Palestinian stances Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast State Library Victoria has cancelled a series of writing events out of concerns over “child and cultural safety”, leaving some of the participants demanding an explanation. The free annual writing bootcamps for teenagers, covering fiction, nonfiction, playwriting and poetry, were pulled suddenly from the library’s program last week, and in one writer’s case, just 24 hours before he was due to hold one of his teaching sessions. NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies Read more Award-winning poet Omar Sakr received an email from the library on 28 February informing him his writing workshops, the first of which was to have taken place on 1 March, would not go ahead. “We have a duty of care to ensure the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place for all participants, artists and facilitators in our programs, and we take this very seriously,” the email said. “At a time of heightened sensitivities, we believe it is important to conduct this review carefully and thoroughly and take the time needed to make sure that the design and implementation guidelines for programs remain appropriate.” Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup When Sakr asked the library for more details about what child and cultural safety issues had arisen that had not been extant in previous years, and whether his workshops had been postponed or cancelled, he was told “the new contract would make it clear”. On 1 March he received a document from the library’s finance department titled “agreement to terminate”. “Due to circumstances which were not apparent at the time of entering into the contract, the library has decided not to proceed with the program from February to June 2024,” the new contract stated. He would be paid in recognition of preparatory work he had already made, the contract said, with one of the provisos being that “the author agrees not to make any claim or demand that the library must do something, or must not do something, in connection with the contract or the program.” Two other writers Guardian Australia spoke to, young adult author Alison Evans and journalist Jinghua Qian, had also had their contracts with the library terminated. All three say the library has refused to provide any further explanation despite repeated requests, leaving them to speculate as to whether the cancellations are related to their vocal support of the Palestinian people in recent months. “Just on the basis of the cancellations that have occurred lately against those of us who have dared call for a ceasefire, I would say there has been pressure – that’s my speculation, but I don’t actually know,” said Sakr, who posts pro-Palestinian messages on social media regularly. “I’m not comfortable with the seriousness and the vagueness of their ‘child and cultural safety’ phrase. Invoking the safety of the student participants in the program implies that at least one of us is dangerous. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I’ve never seen a program cut without explanation, and then been flat-out ignored like this.” Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Read more Evans, who has signed multiple petitions over the Gaza conflict and reposted pro-Palestinian messages on Instagram and X (Twitter), said they emailed the library to ask for more details about the termination of their contract but had only received an equally vague statement in response. “I think it’s very easy to speculate, but I just don’t know, it’s very unclear why they’ve made this decision,” they said. Qian, who is a vocal member of the media union MEAA’s Members for Palestine group and is one of the organisers of this Friday’s rallies across multiple cities protesting against the sacking of Antoinette Lattouf , said the introductory session they conducted with Evans in February attracted more than 80 teenagers. “I can say that I don’t think the cancellations are due to child safety issues,” they said. “It’s a program that’s been running at least three years.” Despite Guardian Australia informing the library that it had a copy of Sakr’s termination contract, a spokesperson said the young writer’s bootcamp had been deferred, not cancelled, saying it was “due to changes in the external environment” and the need to ensure “the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place”. The spokesperson declined to provide more details on what the library saw as changes to the external environment and the child and cultural safety issues that were being reviewed. Explore more on these topics Victoria Australian arts in focus news Share Reuse this content Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore View image in fullscreen Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore This article is more than 1 year old Writers puzzled after State Library Victoria cancels workshops for teens citing ‘child and cultural safety’ This article is more than 1 year old Omar Sakr, Jinghua Qian and Alison Evans have been left to speculate on whether cancellations relate to their pro-Palestinian stances Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast State Library Victoria has cancelled a series of writing events out of concerns over “child and cultural safety”, leaving some of the participants demanding an explanation. The free annual writing bootcamps for teenagers, covering fiction, nonfiction, playwriting and poetry, were pulled suddenly from the library’s program last week, and in one writer’s case, just 24 hours before he was due to hold one of his teaching sessions. NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies Read more Award-winning poet Omar Sakr received an email from the library on 28 February informing him his writing workshops, the first of which was to have taken place on 1 March, would not go ahead. “We have a duty of care to ensure the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place for all participants, artists and facilitators in our programs, and we take this very seriously,” the email said. “At a time of heightened sensitivities, we believe it is important to conduct this review carefully and thoroughly and take the time needed to make sure that the design and implementation guidelines for programs remain appropriate.” Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup When Sakr asked the library for more details about what child and cultural safety issues had arisen that had not been extant in previous years, and whether his workshops had been postponed or cancelled, he was told “the new contract would make it clear”. On 1 March he received a document from the library’s finance department titled “agreement to terminate”. “Due to circumstances which were not apparent at the time of entering into the contract, the library has decided not to proceed with the program from February to June 2024,” the new contract stated. He would be paid in recognition of preparatory work he had already made, the contract said, with one of the provisos being that “the author agrees not to make any claim or demand that the library must do something, or must not do something, in connection with the contract or the program.” Two other writers Guardian Australia spoke to, young adult author Alison Evans and journalist Jinghua Qian, had also had their contracts with the library terminated. All three say the library has refused to provide any further explanation despite repeated requests, leaving them to speculate as to whether the cancellations are related to their vocal support of the Palestinian people in recent months. “Just on the basis of the cancellations that have occurred lately against those of us who have dared call for a ceasefire, I would say there has been pressure – that’s my speculation, but I don’t actually know,” said Sakr, who posts pro-Palestinian messages on social media regularly. “I’m not comfortable with the seriousness and the vagueness of their ‘child and cultural safety’ phrase. Invoking the safety of the student participants in the program implies that at least one of us is dangerous. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I’ve never seen a program cut without explanation, and then been flat-out ignored like this.” Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Read more Evans, who has signed multiple petitions over the Gaza conflict and reposted pro-Palestinian messages on Instagram and X (Twitter), said they emailed the library to ask for more details about the termination of their contract but had only received an equally vague statement in response. “I think it’s very easy to speculate, but I just don’t know, it’s very unclear why they’ve made this decision,” they said. Qian, who is a vocal member of the media union MEAA’s Members for Palestine group and is one of the organisers of this Friday’s rallies across multiple cities protesting against the sacking of Antoinette Lattouf , said the introductory session they conducted with Evans in February attracted more than 80 teenagers. “I can say that I don’t think the cancellations are due to child safety issues,” they said. “It’s a program that’s been running at least three years.” Despite Guardian Australia informing the library that it had a copy of Sakr’s termination contract, a spokesperson said the young writer’s bootcamp had been deferred, not cancelled, saying it was “due to changes in the external environment” and the need to ensure “the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place”. The spokesperson declined to provide more details on what the library saw as changes to the external environment and the child and cultural safety issues that were being reviewed. Explore more on these topics Victoria Australian arts in focus news Share Reuse this content Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore View image in fullscreen Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore View image in fullscreen Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore View image in fullscreen Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore View image in fullscreen Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore Poet Omar Sakr, who had his writing bootcamps at the State Library Victoria cancelled along with journalist Jinghua Qian and young adult author Alison Evans. Photograph: Isabella Moore This article is more than 1 year old Writers puzzled after State Library Victoria cancels workshops for teens citing ‘child and cultural safety’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Writers puzzled after State Library Victoria cancels workshops for teens citing ‘child and cultural safety’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Writers puzzled after State Library Victoria cancels workshops for teens citing ‘child and cultural safety’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Omar Sakr, Jinghua Qian and Alison Evans have been left to speculate on whether cancellations relate to their pro-Palestinian stances Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast Omar Sakr, Jinghua Qian and Alison Evans have been left to speculate on whether cancellations relate to their pro-Palestinian stances Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates Get our morning and afternoon news emails , free app or daily news podcast Omar Sakr, Jinghua Qian and Alison Evans have been left to speculate on whether cancellations relate to their pro-Palestinian stances State Library Victoria has cancelled a series of writing events out of concerns over “child and cultural safety”, leaving some of the participants demanding an explanation. The free annual writing bootcamps for teenagers, covering fiction, nonfiction, playwriting and poetry, were pulled suddenly from the library’s program last week, and in one writer’s case, just 24 hours before he was due to hold one of his teaching sessions. NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies Read more Award-winning poet Omar Sakr received an email from the library on 28 February informing him his writing workshops, the first of which was to have taken place on 1 March, would not go ahead. “We have a duty of care to ensure the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place for all participants, artists and facilitators in our programs, and we take this very seriously,” the email said. “At a time of heightened sensitivities, we believe it is important to conduct this review carefully and thoroughly and take the time needed to make sure that the design and implementation guidelines for programs remain appropriate.” Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup When Sakr asked the library for more details about what child and cultural safety issues had arisen that had not been extant in previous years, and whether his workshops had been postponed or cancelled, he was told “the new contract would make it clear”. On 1 March he received a document from the library’s finance department titled “agreement to terminate”. “Due to circumstances which were not apparent at the time of entering into the contract, the library has decided not to proceed with the program from February to June 2024,” the new contract stated. He would be paid in recognition of preparatory work he had already made, the contract said, with one of the provisos being that “the author agrees not to make any claim or demand that the library must do something, or must not do something, in connection with the contract or the program.” Two other writers Guardian Australia spoke to, young adult author Alison Evans and journalist Jinghua Qian, had also had their contracts with the library terminated. All three say the library has refused to provide any further explanation despite repeated requests, leaving them to speculate as to whether the cancellations are related to their vocal support of the Palestinian people in recent months. “Just on the basis of the cancellations that have occurred lately against those of us who have dared call for a ceasefire, I would say there has been pressure – that’s my speculation, but I don’t actually know,” said Sakr, who posts pro-Palestinian messages on social media regularly. “I’m not comfortable with the seriousness and the vagueness of their ‘child and cultural safety’ phrase. Invoking the safety of the student participants in the program implies that at least one of us is dangerous. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I’ve never seen a program cut without explanation, and then been flat-out ignored like this.” Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Read more Evans, who has signed multiple petitions over the Gaza conflict and reposted pro-Palestinian messages on Instagram and X (Twitter), said they emailed the library to ask for more details about the termination of their contract but had only received an equally vague statement in response. “I think it’s very easy to speculate, but I just don’t know, it’s very unclear why they’ve made this decision,” they said. Qian, who is a vocal member of the media union MEAA’s Members for Palestine group and is one of the organisers of this Friday’s rallies across multiple cities protesting against the sacking of Antoinette Lattouf , said the introductory session they conducted with Evans in February attracted more than 80 teenagers. “I can say that I don’t think the cancellations are due to child safety issues,” they said. “It’s a program that’s been running at least three years.” Despite Guardian Australia informing the library that it had a copy of Sakr’s termination contract, a spokesperson said the young writer’s bootcamp had been deferred, not cancelled, saying it was “due to changes in the external environment” and the need to ensure “the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place”. The spokesperson declined to provide more details on what the library saw as changes to the external environment and the child and cultural safety issues that were being reviewed. Explore more on these topics Victoria Australian arts in focus news Share Reuse this content State Library Victoria has cancelled a series of writing events out of concerns over “child and cultural safety”, leaving some of the participants demanding an explanation. The free annual writing bootcamps for teenagers, covering fiction, nonfiction, playwriting and poetry, were pulled suddenly from the library’s program last week, and in one writer’s case, just 24 hours before he was due to hold one of his teaching sessions. NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies Read more Award-winning poet Omar Sakr received an email from the library on 28 February informing him his writing workshops, the first of which was to have taken place on 1 March, would not go ahead. “We have a duty of care to ensure the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place for all participants, artists and facilitators in our programs, and we take this very seriously,” the email said. “At a time of heightened sensitivities, we believe it is important to conduct this review carefully and thoroughly and take the time needed to make sure that the design and implementation guidelines for programs remain appropriate.” Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup When Sakr asked the library for more details about what child and cultural safety issues had arisen that had not been extant in previous years, and whether his workshops had been postponed or cancelled, he was told “the new contract would make it clear”. On 1 March he received a document from the library’s finance department titled “agreement to terminate”. “Due to circumstances which were not apparent at the time of entering into the contract, the library has decided not to proceed with the program from February to June 2024,” the new contract stated. He would be paid in recognition of preparatory work he had already made, the contract said, with one of the provisos being that “the author agrees not to make any claim or demand that the library must do something, or must not do something, in connection with the contract or the program.” Two other writers Guardian Australia spoke to, young adult author Alison Evans and journalist Jinghua Qian, had also had their contracts with the library terminated. All three say the library has refused to provide any further explanation despite repeated requests, leaving them to speculate as to whether the cancellations are related to their vocal support of the Palestinian people in recent months. “Just on the basis of the cancellations that have occurred lately against those of us who have dared call for a ceasefire, I would say there has been pressure – that’s my speculation, but I don’t actually know,” said Sakr, who posts pro-Palestinian messages on social media regularly. “I’m not comfortable with the seriousness and the vagueness of their ‘child and cultural safety’ phrase. Invoking the safety of the student participants in the program implies that at least one of us is dangerous. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I’ve never seen a program cut without explanation, and then been flat-out ignored like this.” Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Read more Evans, who has signed multiple petitions over the Gaza conflict and reposted pro-Palestinian messages on Instagram and X (Twitter), said they emailed the library to ask for more details about the termination of their contract but had only received an equally vague statement in response. “I think it’s very easy to speculate, but I just don’t know, it’s very unclear why they’ve made this decision,” they said. Qian, who is a vocal member of the media union MEAA’s Members for Palestine group and is one of the organisers of this Friday’s rallies across multiple cities protesting against the sacking of Antoinette Lattouf , said the introductory session they conducted with Evans in February attracted more than 80 teenagers. “I can say that I don’t think the cancellations are due to child safety issues,” they said. “It’s a program that’s been running at least three years.” Despite Guardian Australia informing the library that it had a copy of Sakr’s termination contract, a spokesperson said the young writer’s bootcamp had been deferred, not cancelled, saying it was “due to changes in the external environment” and the need to ensure “the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place”. The spokesperson declined to provide more details on what the library saw as changes to the external environment and the child and cultural safety issues that were being reviewed. Explore more on these topics Victoria Australian arts in focus news Share Reuse this content State Library Victoria has cancelled a series of writing events out of concerns over “child and cultural safety”, leaving some of the participants demanding an explanation. The free annual writing bootcamps for teenagers, covering fiction, nonfiction, playwriting and poetry, were pulled suddenly from the library’s program last week, and in one writer’s case, just 24 hours before he was due to hold one of his teaching sessions. NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies Read more Award-winning poet Omar Sakr received an email from the library on 28 February informing him his writing workshops, the first of which was to have taken place on 1 March, would not go ahead. “We have a duty of care to ensure the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place for all participants, artists and facilitators in our programs, and we take this very seriously,” the email said. “At a time of heightened sensitivities, we believe it is important to conduct this review carefully and thoroughly and take the time needed to make sure that the design and implementation guidelines for programs remain appropriate.” Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup When Sakr asked the library for more details about what child and cultural safety issues had arisen that had not been extant in previous years, and whether his workshops had been postponed or cancelled, he was told “the new contract would make it clear”. On 1 March he received a document from the library’s finance department titled “agreement to terminate”. “Due to circumstances which were not apparent at the time of entering into the contract, the library has decided not to proceed with the program from February to June 2024,” the new contract stated. He would be paid in recognition of preparatory work he had already made, the contract said, with one of the provisos being that “the author agrees not to make any claim or demand that the library must do something, or must not do something, in connection with the contract or the program.” Two other writers Guardian Australia spoke to, young adult author Alison Evans and journalist Jinghua Qian, had also had their contracts with the library terminated. All three say the library has refused to provide any further explanation despite repeated requests, leaving them to speculate as to whether the cancellations are related to their vocal support of the Palestinian people in recent months. “Just on the basis of the cancellations that have occurred lately against those of us who have dared call for a ceasefire, I would say there has been pressure – that’s my speculation, but I don’t actually know,” said Sakr, who posts pro-Palestinian messages on social media regularly. “I’m not comfortable with the seriousness and the vagueness of their ‘child and cultural safety’ phrase. Invoking the safety of the student participants in the program implies that at least one of us is dangerous. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I’ve never seen a program cut without explanation, and then been flat-out ignored like this.” Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Read more Evans, who has signed multiple petitions over the Gaza conflict and reposted pro-Palestinian messages on Instagram and X (Twitter), said they emailed the library to ask for more details about the termination of their contract but had only received an equally vague statement in response. “I think it’s very easy to speculate, but I just don’t know, it’s very unclear why they’ve made this decision,” they said. Qian, who is a vocal member of the media union MEAA’s Members for Palestine group and is one of the organisers of this Friday’s rallies across multiple cities protesting against the sacking of Antoinette Lattouf , said the introductory session they conducted with Evans in February attracted more than 80 teenagers. “I can say that I don’t think the cancellations are due to child safety issues,” they said. “It’s a program that’s been running at least three years.” Despite Guardian Australia informing the library that it had a copy of Sakr’s termination contract, a spokesperson said the young writer’s bootcamp had been deferred, not cancelled, saying it was “due to changes in the external environment” and the need to ensure “the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place”. The spokesperson declined to provide more details on what the library saw as changes to the external environment and the child and cultural safety issues that were being reviewed. State Library Victoria has cancelled a series of writing events out of concerns over “child and cultural safety”, leaving some of the participants demanding an explanation. The free annual writing bootcamps for teenagers, covering fiction, nonfiction, playwriting and poetry, were pulled suddenly from the library’s program last week, and in one writer’s case, just 24 hours before he was due to hold one of his teaching sessions. NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies Read more Award-winning poet Omar Sakr received an email from the library on 28 February informing him his writing workshops, the first of which was to have taken place on 1 March, would not go ahead. “We have a duty of care to ensure the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place for all participants, artists and facilitators in our programs, and we take this very seriously,” the email said. “At a time of heightened sensitivities, we believe it is important to conduct this review carefully and thoroughly and take the time needed to make sure that the design and implementation guidelines for programs remain appropriate.” Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup When Sakr asked the library for more details about what child and cultural safety issues had arisen that had not been extant in previous years, and whether his workshops had been postponed or cancelled, he was told “the new contract would make it clear”. On 1 March he received a document from the library’s finance department titled “agreement to terminate”. “Due to circumstances which were not apparent at the time of entering into the contract, the library has decided not to proceed with the program from February to June 2024,” the new contract stated. He would be paid in recognition of preparatory work he had already made, the contract said, with one of the provisos being that “the author agrees not to make any claim or demand that the library must do something, or must not do something, in connection with the contract or the program.” Two other writers Guardian Australia spoke to, young adult author Alison Evans and journalist Jinghua Qian, had also had their contracts with the library terminated. All three say the library has refused to provide any further explanation despite repeated requests, leaving them to speculate as to whether the cancellations are related to their vocal support of the Palestinian people in recent months. “Just on the basis of the cancellations that have occurred lately against those of us who have dared call for a ceasefire, I would say there has been pressure – that’s my speculation, but I don’t actually know,” said Sakr, who posts pro-Palestinian messages on social media regularly. “I’m not comfortable with the seriousness and the vagueness of their ‘child and cultural safety’ phrase. Invoking the safety of the student participants in the program implies that at least one of us is dangerous. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “I’ve never seen a program cut without explanation, and then been flat-out ignored like this.” Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Read more Evans, who has signed multiple petitions over the Gaza conflict and reposted pro-Palestinian messages on Instagram and X (Twitter), said they emailed the library to ask for more details about the termination of their contract but had only received an equally vague statement in response. “I think it’s very easy to speculate, but I just don’t know, it’s very unclear why they’ve made this decision,” they said. Qian, who is a vocal member of the media union MEAA’s Members for Palestine group and is one of the organisers of this Friday’s rallies across multiple cities protesting against the sacking of Antoinette Lattouf , said the introductory session they conducted with Evans in February attracted more than 80 teenagers. “I can say that I don’t think the cancellations are due to child safety issues,” they said. “It’s a program that’s been running at least three years.” Despite Guardian Australia informing the library that it had a copy of Sakr’s termination contract, a spokesperson said the young writer’s bootcamp had been deferred, not cancelled, saying it was “due to changes in the external environment” and the need to ensure “the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place”. The spokesperson declined to provide more details on what the library saw as changes to the external environment and the child and cultural safety issues that were being reviewed. State Library Victoria has cancelled a series of writing events out of concerns over “child and cultural safety”, leaving some of the participants demanding an explanation. The free annual writing bootcamps for teenagers, covering fiction, nonfiction, playwriting and poetry, were pulled suddenly from the library’s program last week, and in one writer’s case, just 24 hours before he was due to hold one of his teaching sessions. NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies Read more NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies Read more NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies Read more NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies NSW joins Victorian government in cancelling iftar dinners after boycott announced by peak Muslim bodies Award-winning poet Omar Sakr received an email from the library on 28 February informing him his writing workshops, the first of which was to have taken place on 1 March, would not go ahead. “We have a duty of care to ensure the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place for all participants, artists and facilitators in our programs, and we take this very seriously,” the email said. “At a time of heightened sensitivities, we believe it is important to conduct this review carefully and thoroughly and take the time needed to make sure that the design and implementation guidelines for programs remain appropriate.” Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup When Sakr asked the library for more details about what child and cultural safety issues had arisen that had not been extant in previous years, and whether his workshops had been postponed or cancelled, he was told “the new contract would make it clear”. On 1 March he received a document from the library’s finance department titled “agreement to terminate”. “Due to circumstances which were not apparent at the time of entering into the contract, the library has decided not to proceed with the program from February to June 2024,” the new contract stated. He would be paid in recognition of preparatory work he had already made, the contract said, with one of the provisos being that “the author agrees not to make any claim or demand that the library must do something, or must not do something, in connection with the contract or the program.” Two other writers Guardian Australia spoke to, young adult author Alison Evans and journalist Jinghua Qian, had also had their contracts with the library terminated. All three say the library has refused to provide any further explanation despite repeated requests, leaving them to speculate as to whether the cancellations are related to their vocal support of the Palestinian people in recent months. “Just on the basis of the cancellations that have occurred lately against those of us who have dared call for a ceasefire, I would say there has been pressure – that’s my speculation, but I don’t actually know,” said Sakr, who posts pro-Palestinian messages on social media regularly. “I’m not comfortable with the seriousness and the vagueness of their ‘child and cultural safety’ phrase. Invoking the safety of the student participants in the program implies that at least one of us is dangerous. “I’ve never seen a program cut without explanation, and then been flat-out ignored like this.” Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Read more Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Read more Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Read more Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Melbourne writers’ festival deputy chair resigns over Aboriginal and Palestinian solidarity poetry event Evans, who has signed multiple petitions over the Gaza conflict and reposted pro-Palestinian messages on Instagram and X (Twitter), said they emailed the library to ask for more details about the termination of their contract but had only received an equally vague statement in response. “I think it’s very easy to speculate, but I just don’t know, it’s very unclear why they’ve made this decision,” they said. Qian, who is a vocal member of the media union MEAA’s Members for Palestine group and is one of the organisers of this Friday’s rallies across multiple cities protesting against the sacking of Antoinette Lattouf , said the introductory session they conducted with Evans in February attracted more than 80 teenagers. “I can say that I don’t think the cancellations are due to child safety issues,” they said. “It’s a program that’s been running at least three years.” Despite Guardian Australia informing the library that it had a copy of Sakr’s termination contract, a spokesperson said the young writer’s bootcamp had been deferred, not cancelled, saying it was “due to changes in the external environment” and the need to ensure “the highest levels of child and cultural safety are in place”. The spokesperson declined to provide more details on what the library saw as changes to the external environment and the child and cultural safety issues that were being reviewed. Explore more on these topics Victoria Australian arts in focus news Share Reuse this content Victoria Australian arts in focus news |
Labour and Tory-linked thinktanks organise conference to ‘disagree well’
The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Labour and Tory-linked thinktanks organise conference to ‘disagree well’ This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Joint statement before conference on community cohesion warns of danger of US-style culture wars UK politics must learn to “disagree well” or risk a descent into toxic, US-style culture wars, three influential thinktanks with links to the Conservatives and Labour have warned in a joint statement. Before a conference on Friday focusing on community cohesion, the Onward, Labour Together and Create Streets thinktanks said that as well as promoting political accord, there was a need to tackle crumbling towns and wider urban decay to fix fraying social bonds. The event in Coventry will be addressed by Tom Tugendhat , the security minister, who has emerged as a key voice among Tories calling for consensus, as opposed to those expressing more divisive rhetoric, such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick. Another speaker will be Carlos Moreno, the Paris-based academic who devised the urban-planning idea of “15-minute cities”, which has become a focus of conspiracy theories, including recent remarks by other ministers . In their joint statement, the thinktanks called for efforts to “reimagine new forms for our communities”. They said: “That is particularly true in an election year. How do we restitch communities, empowering local groups and councils and ensuring that we are listening to those with direct experience of our crumbling towns and villages? “How do we restitch politics, ‘disagreeing well’ as a society and avoiding the terrifyingly toxic mutual mistrust now common in America? How do we restitch neighbourhoods, physically reweaving places scarred by urban dual-carriageways or inhumane design?” The Tory-linked Onward is seen as particularly close to Rishi Sunak, who used a hastily arranged speech in Downing Street last Friday to call for more community cohesion, having warned days earlier that “mob rule” was dominating the UK. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Read more Labour Together is close to Keir Starmer, while Create Streets is headed by Nicholas Boys Smith, the government’s most senior urbanism adviser, who chairs the Office for Place, an organisation created by Michael Gove that helps guide planning ideas. In comments released before the conference, Tugendhat said the internal security and cohesion of the UK “rests in the long term on the strength of our social fabric”, adding: “Our democracy is only as strong as the relationship between strangers who share the same citizenship.” This focus on improving community relations and encouraging more positive political dialogue echoes elements of Sunak’s speech on Friday, in which he seemingly sought to pull back from a focus on the supposed threat from the likes of pro-Palestine demonstrators and other protest groups. His speech followed comments by Braverman and Jenrick, the former Home Office ministers who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists, and by Lee Anderson, the former Tory deputy chair, who lost the party whip after claiming that “Islamists” had “got control” of Sadiq Khan, the London mayor. Explore more on these topics Politics Conservatives Labour Thinktanks Communities Tom Tugendhat Islamophobia news Share Reuse this content The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Labour and Tory-linked thinktanks organise conference to ‘disagree well’ This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Joint statement before conference on community cohesion warns of danger of US-style culture wars UK politics must learn to “disagree well” or risk a descent into toxic, US-style culture wars, three influential thinktanks with links to the Conservatives and Labour have warned in a joint statement. Before a conference on Friday focusing on community cohesion, the Onward, Labour Together and Create Streets thinktanks said that as well as promoting political accord, there was a need to tackle crumbling towns and wider urban decay to fix fraying social bonds. The event in Coventry will be addressed by Tom Tugendhat , the security minister, who has emerged as a key voice among Tories calling for consensus, as opposed to those expressing more divisive rhetoric, such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick. Another speaker will be Carlos Moreno, the Paris-based academic who devised the urban-planning idea of “15-minute cities”, which has become a focus of conspiracy theories, including recent remarks by other ministers . In their joint statement, the thinktanks called for efforts to “reimagine new forms for our communities”. They said: “That is particularly true in an election year. How do we restitch communities, empowering local groups and councils and ensuring that we are listening to those with direct experience of our crumbling towns and villages? “How do we restitch politics, ‘disagreeing well’ as a society and avoiding the terrifyingly toxic mutual mistrust now common in America? How do we restitch neighbourhoods, physically reweaving places scarred by urban dual-carriageways or inhumane design?” The Tory-linked Onward is seen as particularly close to Rishi Sunak, who used a hastily arranged speech in Downing Street last Friday to call for more community cohesion, having warned days earlier that “mob rule” was dominating the UK. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Read more Labour Together is close to Keir Starmer, while Create Streets is headed by Nicholas Boys Smith, the government’s most senior urbanism adviser, who chairs the Office for Place, an organisation created by Michael Gove that helps guide planning ideas. In comments released before the conference, Tugendhat said the internal security and cohesion of the UK “rests in the long term on the strength of our social fabric”, adding: “Our democracy is only as strong as the relationship between strangers who share the same citizenship.” This focus on improving community relations and encouraging more positive political dialogue echoes elements of Sunak’s speech on Friday, in which he seemingly sought to pull back from a focus on the supposed threat from the likes of pro-Palestine demonstrators and other protest groups. His speech followed comments by Braverman and Jenrick, the former Home Office ministers who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists, and by Lee Anderson, the former Tory deputy chair, who lost the party whip after claiming that “Islamists” had “got control” of Sadiq Khan, the London mayor. Explore more on these topics Politics Conservatives Labour Thinktanks Communities Tom Tugendhat Islamophobia news Share Reuse this content The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images The security minister, Tom Tugendhat, is due to speak at the event in Coventry on Friday. Photograph: Peter Nicholls/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Labour and Tory-linked thinktanks organise conference to ‘disagree well’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Labour and Tory-linked thinktanks organise conference to ‘disagree well’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Labour and Tory-linked thinktanks organise conference to ‘disagree well’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Joint statement before conference on community cohesion warns of danger of US-style culture wars Exclusive: Joint statement before conference on community cohesion warns of danger of US-style culture wars Exclusive: Joint statement before conference on community cohesion warns of danger of US-style culture wars UK politics must learn to “disagree well” or risk a descent into toxic, US-style culture wars, three influential thinktanks with links to the Conservatives and Labour have warned in a joint statement. Before a conference on Friday focusing on community cohesion, the Onward, Labour Together and Create Streets thinktanks said that as well as promoting political accord, there was a need to tackle crumbling towns and wider urban decay to fix fraying social bonds. The event in Coventry will be addressed by Tom Tugendhat , the security minister, who has emerged as a key voice among Tories calling for consensus, as opposed to those expressing more divisive rhetoric, such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick. Another speaker will be Carlos Moreno, the Paris-based academic who devised the urban-planning idea of “15-minute cities”, which has become a focus of conspiracy theories, including recent remarks by other ministers . In their joint statement, the thinktanks called for efforts to “reimagine new forms for our communities”. They said: “That is particularly true in an election year. How do we restitch communities, empowering local groups and councils and ensuring that we are listening to those with direct experience of our crumbling towns and villages? “How do we restitch politics, ‘disagreeing well’ as a society and avoiding the terrifyingly toxic mutual mistrust now common in America? How do we restitch neighbourhoods, physically reweaving places scarred by urban dual-carriageways or inhumane design?” The Tory-linked Onward is seen as particularly close to Rishi Sunak, who used a hastily arranged speech in Downing Street last Friday to call for more community cohesion, having warned days earlier that “mob rule” was dominating the UK. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Read more Labour Together is close to Keir Starmer, while Create Streets is headed by Nicholas Boys Smith, the government’s most senior urbanism adviser, who chairs the Office for Place, an organisation created by Michael Gove that helps guide planning ideas. In comments released before the conference, Tugendhat said the internal security and cohesion of the UK “rests in the long term on the strength of our social fabric”, adding: “Our democracy is only as strong as the relationship between strangers who share the same citizenship.” This focus on improving community relations and encouraging more positive political dialogue echoes elements of Sunak’s speech on Friday, in which he seemingly sought to pull back from a focus on the supposed threat from the likes of pro-Palestine demonstrators and other protest groups. His speech followed comments by Braverman and Jenrick, the former Home Office ministers who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists, and by Lee Anderson, the former Tory deputy chair, who lost the party whip after claiming that “Islamists” had “got control” of Sadiq Khan, the London mayor. Explore more on these topics Politics Conservatives Labour Thinktanks Communities Tom Tugendhat Islamophobia news Share Reuse this content UK politics must learn to “disagree well” or risk a descent into toxic, US-style culture wars, three influential thinktanks with links to the Conservatives and Labour have warned in a joint statement. Before a conference on Friday focusing on community cohesion, the Onward, Labour Together and Create Streets thinktanks said that as well as promoting political accord, there was a need to tackle crumbling towns and wider urban decay to fix fraying social bonds. The event in Coventry will be addressed by Tom Tugendhat , the security minister, who has emerged as a key voice among Tories calling for consensus, as opposed to those expressing more divisive rhetoric, such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick. Another speaker will be Carlos Moreno, the Paris-based academic who devised the urban-planning idea of “15-minute cities”, which has become a focus of conspiracy theories, including recent remarks by other ministers . In their joint statement, the thinktanks called for efforts to “reimagine new forms for our communities”. They said: “That is particularly true in an election year. How do we restitch communities, empowering local groups and councils and ensuring that we are listening to those with direct experience of our crumbling towns and villages? “How do we restitch politics, ‘disagreeing well’ as a society and avoiding the terrifyingly toxic mutual mistrust now common in America? How do we restitch neighbourhoods, physically reweaving places scarred by urban dual-carriageways or inhumane design?” The Tory-linked Onward is seen as particularly close to Rishi Sunak, who used a hastily arranged speech in Downing Street last Friday to call for more community cohesion, having warned days earlier that “mob rule” was dominating the UK. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Read more Labour Together is close to Keir Starmer, while Create Streets is headed by Nicholas Boys Smith, the government’s most senior urbanism adviser, who chairs the Office for Place, an organisation created by Michael Gove that helps guide planning ideas. In comments released before the conference, Tugendhat said the internal security and cohesion of the UK “rests in the long term on the strength of our social fabric”, adding: “Our democracy is only as strong as the relationship between strangers who share the same citizenship.” This focus on improving community relations and encouraging more positive political dialogue echoes elements of Sunak’s speech on Friday, in which he seemingly sought to pull back from a focus on the supposed threat from the likes of pro-Palestine demonstrators and other protest groups. His speech followed comments by Braverman and Jenrick, the former Home Office ministers who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists, and by Lee Anderson, the former Tory deputy chair, who lost the party whip after claiming that “Islamists” had “got control” of Sadiq Khan, the London mayor. Explore more on these topics Politics Conservatives Labour Thinktanks Communities Tom Tugendhat Islamophobia news Share Reuse this content UK politics must learn to “disagree well” or risk a descent into toxic, US-style culture wars, three influential thinktanks with links to the Conservatives and Labour have warned in a joint statement. Before a conference on Friday focusing on community cohesion, the Onward, Labour Together and Create Streets thinktanks said that as well as promoting political accord, there was a need to tackle crumbling towns and wider urban decay to fix fraying social bonds. The event in Coventry will be addressed by Tom Tugendhat , the security minister, who has emerged as a key voice among Tories calling for consensus, as opposed to those expressing more divisive rhetoric, such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick. Another speaker will be Carlos Moreno, the Paris-based academic who devised the urban-planning idea of “15-minute cities”, which has become a focus of conspiracy theories, including recent remarks by other ministers . In their joint statement, the thinktanks called for efforts to “reimagine new forms for our communities”. They said: “That is particularly true in an election year. How do we restitch communities, empowering local groups and councils and ensuring that we are listening to those with direct experience of our crumbling towns and villages? “How do we restitch politics, ‘disagreeing well’ as a society and avoiding the terrifyingly toxic mutual mistrust now common in America? How do we restitch neighbourhoods, physically reweaving places scarred by urban dual-carriageways or inhumane design?” The Tory-linked Onward is seen as particularly close to Rishi Sunak, who used a hastily arranged speech in Downing Street last Friday to call for more community cohesion, having warned days earlier that “mob rule” was dominating the UK. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Read more Labour Together is close to Keir Starmer, while Create Streets is headed by Nicholas Boys Smith, the government’s most senior urbanism adviser, who chairs the Office for Place, an organisation created by Michael Gove that helps guide planning ideas. In comments released before the conference, Tugendhat said the internal security and cohesion of the UK “rests in the long term on the strength of our social fabric”, adding: “Our democracy is only as strong as the relationship between strangers who share the same citizenship.” This focus on improving community relations and encouraging more positive political dialogue echoes elements of Sunak’s speech on Friday, in which he seemingly sought to pull back from a focus on the supposed threat from the likes of pro-Palestine demonstrators and other protest groups. His speech followed comments by Braverman and Jenrick, the former Home Office ministers who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists, and by Lee Anderson, the former Tory deputy chair, who lost the party whip after claiming that “Islamists” had “got control” of Sadiq Khan, the London mayor. UK politics must learn to “disagree well” or risk a descent into toxic, US-style culture wars, three influential thinktanks with links to the Conservatives and Labour have warned in a joint statement. Before a conference on Friday focusing on community cohesion, the Onward, Labour Together and Create Streets thinktanks said that as well as promoting political accord, there was a need to tackle crumbling towns and wider urban decay to fix fraying social bonds. The event in Coventry will be addressed by Tom Tugendhat , the security minister, who has emerged as a key voice among Tories calling for consensus, as opposed to those expressing more divisive rhetoric, such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick. Another speaker will be Carlos Moreno, the Paris-based academic who devised the urban-planning idea of “15-minute cities”, which has become a focus of conspiracy theories, including recent remarks by other ministers . In their joint statement, the thinktanks called for efforts to “reimagine new forms for our communities”. They said: “That is particularly true in an election year. How do we restitch communities, empowering local groups and councils and ensuring that we are listening to those with direct experience of our crumbling towns and villages? “How do we restitch politics, ‘disagreeing well’ as a society and avoiding the terrifyingly toxic mutual mistrust now common in America? How do we restitch neighbourhoods, physically reweaving places scarred by urban dual-carriageways or inhumane design?” The Tory-linked Onward is seen as particularly close to Rishi Sunak, who used a hastily arranged speech in Downing Street last Friday to call for more community cohesion, having warned days earlier that “mob rule” was dominating the UK. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Read more Labour Together is close to Keir Starmer, while Create Streets is headed by Nicholas Boys Smith, the government’s most senior urbanism adviser, who chairs the Office for Place, an organisation created by Michael Gove that helps guide planning ideas. In comments released before the conference, Tugendhat said the internal security and cohesion of the UK “rests in the long term on the strength of our social fabric”, adding: “Our democracy is only as strong as the relationship between strangers who share the same citizenship.” This focus on improving community relations and encouraging more positive political dialogue echoes elements of Sunak’s speech on Friday, in which he seemingly sought to pull back from a focus on the supposed threat from the likes of pro-Palestine demonstrators and other protest groups. His speech followed comments by Braverman and Jenrick, the former Home Office ministers who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists, and by Lee Anderson, the former Tory deputy chair, who lost the party whip after claiming that “Islamists” had “got control” of Sadiq Khan, the London mayor. UK politics must learn to “disagree well” or risk a descent into toxic, US-style culture wars, three influential thinktanks with links to the Conservatives and Labour have warned in a joint statement. Before a conference on Friday focusing on community cohesion, the Onward, Labour Together and Create Streets thinktanks said that as well as promoting political accord, there was a need to tackle crumbling towns and wider urban decay to fix fraying social bonds. The event in Coventry will be addressed by Tom Tugendhat , the security minister, who has emerged as a key voice among Tories calling for consensus, as opposed to those expressing more divisive rhetoric, such as Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick. Another speaker will be Carlos Moreno, the Paris-based academic who devised the urban-planning idea of “15-minute cities”, which has become a focus of conspiracy theories, including recent remarks by other ministers . In their joint statement, the thinktanks called for efforts to “reimagine new forms for our communities”. They said: “That is particularly true in an election year. How do we restitch communities, empowering local groups and councils and ensuring that we are listening to those with direct experience of our crumbling towns and villages? “How do we restitch politics, ‘disagreeing well’ as a society and avoiding the terrifyingly toxic mutual mistrust now common in America? How do we restitch neighbourhoods, physically reweaving places scarred by urban dual-carriageways or inhumane design?” The Tory-linked Onward is seen as particularly close to Rishi Sunak, who used a hastily arranged speech in Downing Street last Friday to call for more community cohesion, having warned days earlier that “mob rule” was dominating the UK. Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Read more Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Read more Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Read more Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Extremists trying to tear us apart, says Rishi Sunak in impromptu No 10 speech Labour Together is close to Keir Starmer, while Create Streets is headed by Nicholas Boys Smith, the government’s most senior urbanism adviser, who chairs the Office for Place, an organisation created by Michael Gove that helps guide planning ideas. In comments released before the conference, Tugendhat said the internal security and cohesion of the UK “rests in the long term on the strength of our social fabric”, adding: “Our democracy is only as strong as the relationship between strangers who share the same citizenship.” This focus on improving community relations and encouraging more positive political dialogue echoes elements of Sunak’s speech on Friday, in which he seemingly sought to pull back from a focus on the supposed threat from the likes of pro-Palestine demonstrators and other protest groups. His speech followed comments by Braverman and Jenrick, the former Home Office ministers who have sought to frame recent tensions as almost entirely the responsibility of Islamist extremists, and by Lee Anderson, the former Tory deputy chair, who lost the party whip after claiming that “Islamists” had “got control” of Sadiq Khan, the London mayor. Explore more on these topics Politics Conservatives Labour Thinktanks Communities Tom Tugendhat Islamophobia news Share Reuse this content Politics Conservatives Labour Thinktanks Communities Tom Tugendhat Islamophobia news |
Socialism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion on Prevent list of terrorism warning signs
Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA View image in fullscreen Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA This article is more than 1 year old Socialism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion on Prevent list of terrorism warning signs This article is more than 1 year old Communism also among ideologies on document as human rights groups say UK scheme has been politicised A document from Prevent, the official scheme to stop radicalisation, includes believing in socialism, communism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion in a list of potential signs of ideologies leading to terrorism. It comes as the Conservative government considers widening what it will consider to be extremism. The document is part of online Prevent awareness training for those covered by the duty to inform if they suspect radicalisation. That includes teachers and youth workers. The guidance was updated last year and published with little or no fanfare, after William Shawcross’s controversial government-ordered report on Prevent was released. A former head of counter-terrorism said it risked damaging Prevent, and human rights groups said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. In a section on the left wing it states: “Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause.” In a section on single-issue ideologies, the document reads: “Narratives are likely to come from those who seek to change a specific policy or practice, as opposed to replacing the whole economic, political or social system. Examples include animal rights, anti-abortion or anti-fascism. Single-issue narratives can be politically agnostic, meaning they may be neither right nor left aligned.” Neil Basu, a former police head of counter-terrorism, said: “That is far too nebulous, and there is no qualification. It might lead to unforeseen consequences such as overwhelming the system and bringing the system into disrepute. “The reputation of Prevent is still very fragile. It makes the haystack unnecessarily bigger in which you are trying to find the needle.” Those completing the online course get a certificate to say they have awareness of Prevent. The government commissioned a review of Prevent by Shawcross , whose appointment led to a boycott of the review because of his alleged anti-Muslim and rightwing views. The guidance for those covered by the Prevent duty was updated afterwards in July 2023. The document details the main two ideologies driving the terrorist threat to the UK: Islamism, which makes up the bulk of the caseload, and the extreme right wing, which makes up about 20-30% of the caseloads, according to counter-terrorism sources. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Prevent deals with all forms of radicalisation and it is important that this is effectively communicated within our training products so that frontline professionals are equipped to take the appropriate action. “All training products are regularly updated to ensure they are reflecting the latest threat picture.” Jacob Smith, from Rights and Security International, a human rights advocacy group, said: “For years, we have expressed concern about how the government’s broad concept of ‘extremism’ could be open to politicised abuses. It appears that this concern has now been realised through a blatant distinction between how the government wants to treat people on the ‘left’ versus people on the ‘right’ under Prevent. “Our concern is only heightened by government rhetoric during the past few days that appears to be targeting British Muslims and protesters for Palestinian rights. If ‘extremism’ can mean anything the government wants it to mean, that’s a clear problem for democracy.” Ilyas Nagdee, from Amnesty International, said: “This is yet another crackdown from the UK government to stifle freedom of expression – including political speech and activism – using the blunt instrument that is Prevent. “Prevent is brazenly being used here to target political expression as it has long been criticised of doing. The government should not be in the business of rolling out training and guidance on what they deem acceptable or unacceptable political ideologies and forms of activism.” Other official training documents for Prevent state that “under the Prevent duty” those covered by it must “support” anyone at risk of radicalisation. It says: “It’s not your responsibility to risk assess the level of radicalisation,” and urges providing “as much context as possible before it’s shared with the police”. Other official material says details that should be provided to the authorities about anyone being referred to Prevent should include name, religion, social media name, ethnicity, nationality, main language, immigration or asylum status, and any additional family details. It also says data that can be shared can include, neurodivergence, mental health, details about emotional health and cultural factors. It also asks any referral includes details of the “ideology of concern … provide details of the ideology which may be contributing to making the person susceptible to radicalisation”. “This training is designed to make sure that when you share a concern that a person may be being radicalised into terrorism: it’s informed; it’s with good intention; the response to that concern is considered, and proportionate.” Explore more on these topics Prevent strategy UK security and counter-terrorism Socialism Communism Abortion Protest Freedom of speech news Share Reuse this content Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA View image in fullscreen Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA This article is more than 1 year old Socialism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion on Prevent list of terrorism warning signs This article is more than 1 year old Communism also among ideologies on document as human rights groups say UK scheme has been politicised A document from Prevent, the official scheme to stop radicalisation, includes believing in socialism, communism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion in a list of potential signs of ideologies leading to terrorism. It comes as the Conservative government considers widening what it will consider to be extremism. The document is part of online Prevent awareness training for those covered by the duty to inform if they suspect radicalisation. That includes teachers and youth workers. The guidance was updated last year and published with little or no fanfare, after William Shawcross’s controversial government-ordered report on Prevent was released. A former head of counter-terrorism said it risked damaging Prevent, and human rights groups said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. In a section on the left wing it states: “Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause.” In a section on single-issue ideologies, the document reads: “Narratives are likely to come from those who seek to change a specific policy or practice, as opposed to replacing the whole economic, political or social system. Examples include animal rights, anti-abortion or anti-fascism. Single-issue narratives can be politically agnostic, meaning they may be neither right nor left aligned.” Neil Basu, a former police head of counter-terrorism, said: “That is far too nebulous, and there is no qualification. It might lead to unforeseen consequences such as overwhelming the system and bringing the system into disrepute. “The reputation of Prevent is still very fragile. It makes the haystack unnecessarily bigger in which you are trying to find the needle.” Those completing the online course get a certificate to say they have awareness of Prevent. The government commissioned a review of Prevent by Shawcross , whose appointment led to a boycott of the review because of his alleged anti-Muslim and rightwing views. The guidance for those covered by the Prevent duty was updated afterwards in July 2023. The document details the main two ideologies driving the terrorist threat to the UK: Islamism, which makes up the bulk of the caseload, and the extreme right wing, which makes up about 20-30% of the caseloads, according to counter-terrorism sources. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Prevent deals with all forms of radicalisation and it is important that this is effectively communicated within our training products so that frontline professionals are equipped to take the appropriate action. “All training products are regularly updated to ensure they are reflecting the latest threat picture.” Jacob Smith, from Rights and Security International, a human rights advocacy group, said: “For years, we have expressed concern about how the government’s broad concept of ‘extremism’ could be open to politicised abuses. It appears that this concern has now been realised through a blatant distinction between how the government wants to treat people on the ‘left’ versus people on the ‘right’ under Prevent. “Our concern is only heightened by government rhetoric during the past few days that appears to be targeting British Muslims and protesters for Palestinian rights. If ‘extremism’ can mean anything the government wants it to mean, that’s a clear problem for democracy.” Ilyas Nagdee, from Amnesty International, said: “This is yet another crackdown from the UK government to stifle freedom of expression – including political speech and activism – using the blunt instrument that is Prevent. “Prevent is brazenly being used here to target political expression as it has long been criticised of doing. The government should not be in the business of rolling out training and guidance on what they deem acceptable or unacceptable political ideologies and forms of activism.” Other official training documents for Prevent state that “under the Prevent duty” those covered by it must “support” anyone at risk of radicalisation. It says: “It’s not your responsibility to risk assess the level of radicalisation,” and urges providing “as much context as possible before it’s shared with the police”. Other official material says details that should be provided to the authorities about anyone being referred to Prevent should include name, religion, social media name, ethnicity, nationality, main language, immigration or asylum status, and any additional family details. It also says data that can be shared can include, neurodivergence, mental health, details about emotional health and cultural factors. It also asks any referral includes details of the “ideology of concern … provide details of the ideology which may be contributing to making the person susceptible to radicalisation”. “This training is designed to make sure that when you share a concern that a person may be being radicalised into terrorism: it’s informed; it’s with good intention; the response to that concern is considered, and proportionate.” Explore more on these topics Prevent strategy UK security and counter-terrorism Socialism Communism Abortion Protest Freedom of speech news Share Reuse this content Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA View image in fullscreen Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA View image in fullscreen Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA View image in fullscreen Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA View image in fullscreen Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA Campaigners said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. Photograph: Charlotte Ball/PA This article is more than 1 year old Socialism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion on Prevent list of terrorism warning signs This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Socialism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion on Prevent list of terrorism warning signs This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Socialism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion on Prevent list of terrorism warning signs This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Communism also among ideologies on document as human rights groups say UK scheme has been politicised Communism also among ideologies on document as human rights groups say UK scheme has been politicised Communism also among ideologies on document as human rights groups say UK scheme has been politicised A document from Prevent, the official scheme to stop radicalisation, includes believing in socialism, communism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion in a list of potential signs of ideologies leading to terrorism. It comes as the Conservative government considers widening what it will consider to be extremism. The document is part of online Prevent awareness training for those covered by the duty to inform if they suspect radicalisation. That includes teachers and youth workers. The guidance was updated last year and published with little or no fanfare, after William Shawcross’s controversial government-ordered report on Prevent was released. A former head of counter-terrorism said it risked damaging Prevent, and human rights groups said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. In a section on the left wing it states: “Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause.” In a section on single-issue ideologies, the document reads: “Narratives are likely to come from those who seek to change a specific policy or practice, as opposed to replacing the whole economic, political or social system. Examples include animal rights, anti-abortion or anti-fascism. Single-issue narratives can be politically agnostic, meaning they may be neither right nor left aligned.” Neil Basu, a former police head of counter-terrorism, said: “That is far too nebulous, and there is no qualification. It might lead to unforeseen consequences such as overwhelming the system and bringing the system into disrepute. “The reputation of Prevent is still very fragile. It makes the haystack unnecessarily bigger in which you are trying to find the needle.” Those completing the online course get a certificate to say they have awareness of Prevent. The government commissioned a review of Prevent by Shawcross , whose appointment led to a boycott of the review because of his alleged anti-Muslim and rightwing views. The guidance for those covered by the Prevent duty was updated afterwards in July 2023. The document details the main two ideologies driving the terrorist threat to the UK: Islamism, which makes up the bulk of the caseload, and the extreme right wing, which makes up about 20-30% of the caseloads, according to counter-terrorism sources. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Prevent deals with all forms of radicalisation and it is important that this is effectively communicated within our training products so that frontline professionals are equipped to take the appropriate action. “All training products are regularly updated to ensure they are reflecting the latest threat picture.” Jacob Smith, from Rights and Security International, a human rights advocacy group, said: “For years, we have expressed concern about how the government’s broad concept of ‘extremism’ could be open to politicised abuses. It appears that this concern has now been realised through a blatant distinction between how the government wants to treat people on the ‘left’ versus people on the ‘right’ under Prevent. “Our concern is only heightened by government rhetoric during the past few days that appears to be targeting British Muslims and protesters for Palestinian rights. If ‘extremism’ can mean anything the government wants it to mean, that’s a clear problem for democracy.” Ilyas Nagdee, from Amnesty International, said: “This is yet another crackdown from the UK government to stifle freedom of expression – including political speech and activism – using the blunt instrument that is Prevent. “Prevent is brazenly being used here to target political expression as it has long been criticised of doing. The government should not be in the business of rolling out training and guidance on what they deem acceptable or unacceptable political ideologies and forms of activism.” Other official training documents for Prevent state that “under the Prevent duty” those covered by it must “support” anyone at risk of radicalisation. It says: “It’s not your responsibility to risk assess the level of radicalisation,” and urges providing “as much context as possible before it’s shared with the police”. Other official material says details that should be provided to the authorities about anyone being referred to Prevent should include name, religion, social media name, ethnicity, nationality, main language, immigration or asylum status, and any additional family details. It also says data that can be shared can include, neurodivergence, mental health, details about emotional health and cultural factors. It also asks any referral includes details of the “ideology of concern … provide details of the ideology which may be contributing to making the person susceptible to radicalisation”. “This training is designed to make sure that when you share a concern that a person may be being radicalised into terrorism: it’s informed; it’s with good intention; the response to that concern is considered, and proportionate.” Explore more on these topics Prevent strategy UK security and counter-terrorism Socialism Communism Abortion Protest Freedom of speech news Share Reuse this content A document from Prevent, the official scheme to stop radicalisation, includes believing in socialism, communism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion in a list of potential signs of ideologies leading to terrorism. It comes as the Conservative government considers widening what it will consider to be extremism. The document is part of online Prevent awareness training for those covered by the duty to inform if they suspect radicalisation. That includes teachers and youth workers. The guidance was updated last year and published with little or no fanfare, after William Shawcross’s controversial government-ordered report on Prevent was released. A former head of counter-terrorism said it risked damaging Prevent, and human rights groups said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. In a section on the left wing it states: “Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause.” In a section on single-issue ideologies, the document reads: “Narratives are likely to come from those who seek to change a specific policy or practice, as opposed to replacing the whole economic, political or social system. Examples include animal rights, anti-abortion or anti-fascism. Single-issue narratives can be politically agnostic, meaning they may be neither right nor left aligned.” Neil Basu, a former police head of counter-terrorism, said: “That is far too nebulous, and there is no qualification. It might lead to unforeseen consequences such as overwhelming the system and bringing the system into disrepute. “The reputation of Prevent is still very fragile. It makes the haystack unnecessarily bigger in which you are trying to find the needle.” Those completing the online course get a certificate to say they have awareness of Prevent. The government commissioned a review of Prevent by Shawcross , whose appointment led to a boycott of the review because of his alleged anti-Muslim and rightwing views. The guidance for those covered by the Prevent duty was updated afterwards in July 2023. The document details the main two ideologies driving the terrorist threat to the UK: Islamism, which makes up the bulk of the caseload, and the extreme right wing, which makes up about 20-30% of the caseloads, according to counter-terrorism sources. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Prevent deals with all forms of radicalisation and it is important that this is effectively communicated within our training products so that frontline professionals are equipped to take the appropriate action. “All training products are regularly updated to ensure they are reflecting the latest threat picture.” Jacob Smith, from Rights and Security International, a human rights advocacy group, said: “For years, we have expressed concern about how the government’s broad concept of ‘extremism’ could be open to politicised abuses. It appears that this concern has now been realised through a blatant distinction between how the government wants to treat people on the ‘left’ versus people on the ‘right’ under Prevent. “Our concern is only heightened by government rhetoric during the past few days that appears to be targeting British Muslims and protesters for Palestinian rights. If ‘extremism’ can mean anything the government wants it to mean, that’s a clear problem for democracy.” Ilyas Nagdee, from Amnesty International, said: “This is yet another crackdown from the UK government to stifle freedom of expression – including political speech and activism – using the blunt instrument that is Prevent. “Prevent is brazenly being used here to target political expression as it has long been criticised of doing. The government should not be in the business of rolling out training and guidance on what they deem acceptable or unacceptable political ideologies and forms of activism.” Other official training documents for Prevent state that “under the Prevent duty” those covered by it must “support” anyone at risk of radicalisation. It says: “It’s not your responsibility to risk assess the level of radicalisation,” and urges providing “as much context as possible before it’s shared with the police”. Other official material says details that should be provided to the authorities about anyone being referred to Prevent should include name, religion, social media name, ethnicity, nationality, main language, immigration or asylum status, and any additional family details. It also says data that can be shared can include, neurodivergence, mental health, details about emotional health and cultural factors. It also asks any referral includes details of the “ideology of concern … provide details of the ideology which may be contributing to making the person susceptible to radicalisation”. “This training is designed to make sure that when you share a concern that a person may be being radicalised into terrorism: it’s informed; it’s with good intention; the response to that concern is considered, and proportionate.” Explore more on these topics Prevent strategy UK security and counter-terrorism Socialism Communism Abortion Protest Freedom of speech news Share Reuse this content A document from Prevent, the official scheme to stop radicalisation, includes believing in socialism, communism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion in a list of potential signs of ideologies leading to terrorism. It comes as the Conservative government considers widening what it will consider to be extremism. The document is part of online Prevent awareness training for those covered by the duty to inform if they suspect radicalisation. That includes teachers and youth workers. The guidance was updated last year and published with little or no fanfare, after William Shawcross’s controversial government-ordered report on Prevent was released. A former head of counter-terrorism said it risked damaging Prevent, and human rights groups said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. In a section on the left wing it states: “Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause.” In a section on single-issue ideologies, the document reads: “Narratives are likely to come from those who seek to change a specific policy or practice, as opposed to replacing the whole economic, political or social system. Examples include animal rights, anti-abortion or anti-fascism. Single-issue narratives can be politically agnostic, meaning they may be neither right nor left aligned.” Neil Basu, a former police head of counter-terrorism, said: “That is far too nebulous, and there is no qualification. It might lead to unforeseen consequences such as overwhelming the system and bringing the system into disrepute. “The reputation of Prevent is still very fragile. It makes the haystack unnecessarily bigger in which you are trying to find the needle.” Those completing the online course get a certificate to say they have awareness of Prevent. The government commissioned a review of Prevent by Shawcross , whose appointment led to a boycott of the review because of his alleged anti-Muslim and rightwing views. The guidance for those covered by the Prevent duty was updated afterwards in July 2023. The document details the main two ideologies driving the terrorist threat to the UK: Islamism, which makes up the bulk of the caseload, and the extreme right wing, which makes up about 20-30% of the caseloads, according to counter-terrorism sources. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Prevent deals with all forms of radicalisation and it is important that this is effectively communicated within our training products so that frontline professionals are equipped to take the appropriate action. “All training products are regularly updated to ensure they are reflecting the latest threat picture.” Jacob Smith, from Rights and Security International, a human rights advocacy group, said: “For years, we have expressed concern about how the government’s broad concept of ‘extremism’ could be open to politicised abuses. It appears that this concern has now been realised through a blatant distinction between how the government wants to treat people on the ‘left’ versus people on the ‘right’ under Prevent. “Our concern is only heightened by government rhetoric during the past few days that appears to be targeting British Muslims and protesters for Palestinian rights. If ‘extremism’ can mean anything the government wants it to mean, that’s a clear problem for democracy.” Ilyas Nagdee, from Amnesty International, said: “This is yet another crackdown from the UK government to stifle freedom of expression – including political speech and activism – using the blunt instrument that is Prevent. “Prevent is brazenly being used here to target political expression as it has long been criticised of doing. The government should not be in the business of rolling out training and guidance on what they deem acceptable or unacceptable political ideologies and forms of activism.” Other official training documents for Prevent state that “under the Prevent duty” those covered by it must “support” anyone at risk of radicalisation. It says: “It’s not your responsibility to risk assess the level of radicalisation,” and urges providing “as much context as possible before it’s shared with the police”. Other official material says details that should be provided to the authorities about anyone being referred to Prevent should include name, religion, social media name, ethnicity, nationality, main language, immigration or asylum status, and any additional family details. It also says data that can be shared can include, neurodivergence, mental health, details about emotional health and cultural factors. It also asks any referral includes details of the “ideology of concern … provide details of the ideology which may be contributing to making the person susceptible to radicalisation”. “This training is designed to make sure that when you share a concern that a person may be being radicalised into terrorism: it’s informed; it’s with good intention; the response to that concern is considered, and proportionate.” A document from Prevent, the official scheme to stop radicalisation, includes believing in socialism, communism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion in a list of potential signs of ideologies leading to terrorism. It comes as the Conservative government considers widening what it will consider to be extremism. The document is part of online Prevent awareness training for those covered by the duty to inform if they suspect radicalisation. That includes teachers and youth workers. The guidance was updated last year and published with little or no fanfare, after William Shawcross’s controversial government-ordered report on Prevent was released. A former head of counter-terrorism said it risked damaging Prevent, and human rights groups said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. In a section on the left wing it states: “Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause.” In a section on single-issue ideologies, the document reads: “Narratives are likely to come from those who seek to change a specific policy or practice, as opposed to replacing the whole economic, political or social system. Examples include animal rights, anti-abortion or anti-fascism. Single-issue narratives can be politically agnostic, meaning they may be neither right nor left aligned.” Neil Basu, a former police head of counter-terrorism, said: “That is far too nebulous, and there is no qualification. It might lead to unforeseen consequences such as overwhelming the system and bringing the system into disrepute. “The reputation of Prevent is still very fragile. It makes the haystack unnecessarily bigger in which you are trying to find the needle.” Those completing the online course get a certificate to say they have awareness of Prevent. The government commissioned a review of Prevent by Shawcross , whose appointment led to a boycott of the review because of his alleged anti-Muslim and rightwing views. The guidance for those covered by the Prevent duty was updated afterwards in July 2023. The document details the main two ideologies driving the terrorist threat to the UK: Islamism, which makes up the bulk of the caseload, and the extreme right wing, which makes up about 20-30% of the caseloads, according to counter-terrorism sources. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Prevent deals with all forms of radicalisation and it is important that this is effectively communicated within our training products so that frontline professionals are equipped to take the appropriate action. “All training products are regularly updated to ensure they are reflecting the latest threat picture.” Jacob Smith, from Rights and Security International, a human rights advocacy group, said: “For years, we have expressed concern about how the government’s broad concept of ‘extremism’ could be open to politicised abuses. It appears that this concern has now been realised through a blatant distinction between how the government wants to treat people on the ‘left’ versus people on the ‘right’ under Prevent. “Our concern is only heightened by government rhetoric during the past few days that appears to be targeting British Muslims and protesters for Palestinian rights. If ‘extremism’ can mean anything the government wants it to mean, that’s a clear problem for democracy.” Ilyas Nagdee, from Amnesty International, said: “This is yet another crackdown from the UK government to stifle freedom of expression – including political speech and activism – using the blunt instrument that is Prevent. “Prevent is brazenly being used here to target political expression as it has long been criticised of doing. The government should not be in the business of rolling out training and guidance on what they deem acceptable or unacceptable political ideologies and forms of activism.” Other official training documents for Prevent state that “under the Prevent duty” those covered by it must “support” anyone at risk of radicalisation. It says: “It’s not your responsibility to risk assess the level of radicalisation,” and urges providing “as much context as possible before it’s shared with the police”. Other official material says details that should be provided to the authorities about anyone being referred to Prevent should include name, religion, social media name, ethnicity, nationality, main language, immigration or asylum status, and any additional family details. It also says data that can be shared can include, neurodivergence, mental health, details about emotional health and cultural factors. It also asks any referral includes details of the “ideology of concern … provide details of the ideology which may be contributing to making the person susceptible to radicalisation”. “This training is designed to make sure that when you share a concern that a person may be being radicalised into terrorism: it’s informed; it’s with good intention; the response to that concern is considered, and proportionate.” A document from Prevent, the official scheme to stop radicalisation, includes believing in socialism, communism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion in a list of potential signs of ideologies leading to terrorism. It comes as the Conservative government considers widening what it will consider to be extremism. The document is part of online Prevent awareness training for those covered by the duty to inform if they suspect radicalisation. That includes teachers and youth workers. The guidance was updated last year and published with little or no fanfare, after William Shawcross’s controversial government-ordered report on Prevent was released. A former head of counter-terrorism said it risked damaging Prevent, and human rights groups said the government was playing political games under the guise of stopping terrorism. In a section on the left wing it states: “Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause.” In a section on single-issue ideologies, the document reads: “Narratives are likely to come from those who seek to change a specific policy or practice, as opposed to replacing the whole economic, political or social system. Examples include animal rights, anti-abortion or anti-fascism. Single-issue narratives can be politically agnostic, meaning they may be neither right nor left aligned.” Neil Basu, a former police head of counter-terrorism, said: “That is far too nebulous, and there is no qualification. It might lead to unforeseen consequences such as overwhelming the system and bringing the system into disrepute. “The reputation of Prevent is still very fragile. It makes the haystack unnecessarily bigger in which you are trying to find the needle.” Those completing the online course get a certificate to say they have awareness of Prevent. The government commissioned a review of Prevent by Shawcross , whose appointment led to a boycott of the review because of his alleged anti-Muslim and rightwing views. The guidance for those covered by the Prevent duty was updated afterwards in July 2023. The document details the main two ideologies driving the terrorist threat to the UK: Islamism, which makes up the bulk of the caseload, and the extreme right wing, which makes up about 20-30% of the caseloads, according to counter-terrorism sources. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Prevent deals with all forms of radicalisation and it is important that this is effectively communicated within our training products so that frontline professionals are equipped to take the appropriate action. “All training products are regularly updated to ensure they are reflecting the latest threat picture.” Jacob Smith, from Rights and Security International, a human rights advocacy group, said: “For years, we have expressed concern about how the government’s broad concept of ‘extremism’ could be open to politicised abuses. It appears that this concern has now been realised through a blatant distinction between how the government wants to treat people on the ‘left’ versus people on the ‘right’ under Prevent. “Our concern is only heightened by government rhetoric during the past few days that appears to be targeting British Muslims and protesters for Palestinian rights. If ‘extremism’ can mean anything the government wants it to mean, that’s a clear problem for democracy.” Ilyas Nagdee, from Amnesty International, said: “This is yet another crackdown from the UK government to stifle freedom of expression – including political speech and activism – using the blunt instrument that is Prevent. “Prevent is brazenly being used here to target political expression as it has long been criticised of doing. The government should not be in the business of rolling out training and guidance on what they deem acceptable or unacceptable political ideologies and forms of activism.” Other official training documents for Prevent state that “under the Prevent duty” those covered by it must “support” anyone at risk of radicalisation. It says: “It’s not your responsibility to risk assess the level of radicalisation,” and urges providing “as much context as possible before it’s shared with the police”. Other official material says details that should be provided to the authorities about anyone being referred to Prevent should include name, religion, social media name, ethnicity, nationality, main language, immigration or asylum status, and any additional family details. It also says data that can be shared can include, neurodivergence, mental health, details about emotional health and cultural factors. It also asks any referral includes details of the “ideology of concern … provide details of the ideology which may be contributing to making the person susceptible to radicalisation”. “This training is designed to make sure that when you share a concern that a person may be being radicalised into terrorism: it’s informed; it’s with good intention; the response to that concern is considered, and proportionate.” Explore more on these topics Prevent strategy UK security and counter-terrorism Socialism Communism Abortion Protest Freedom of speech news Share Reuse this content Prevent strategy UK security and counter-terrorism Socialism Communism Abortion Protest Freedom of speech news |
‘No drilling! No drilling!’: climate choir sings truth to power in Palace of Westminster
Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘No drilling! No drilling!’: climate choir sings truth to power in Palace of Westminster This article is more than 1 year old Voices of Climate Choir Movement fill St Stephen’s Hall in group’s most dramatic protest yet Making an elaborate, distracting fuss, the climate choir’s 100-strong decoy choir gets into position on the pavement outside parliament. Police gather and hover nearby. Politicians rush past on their way into the House of Commons, smiling benignly as the decoy choir launches into a hearty, opening song. Distracted by the music, they do not notice that most of the well-dressed people entering St Stephen’s Hall with them are looking nervous and walking stiffly. It is hard, after all, to walk properly when you’ve got a large protest banner stuffed down the leg of your trousers – and are worried that in less than five minutes, you’re going to be arrested in the home of the UK parliament. Johnny Devas is a retired architect, specialising in the gothic architecture that makes parliament one of the most recognised buildings in the world. But on Thursday, his expertise is a ruse – and “architecture” a code word. Once all 100 of the real climate choir protest singers have successfully passed through the airport-style security outside the medieval hall and gathered round, Devas says the magic words: “The architectural tour is about to begin.” View image in fullscreen A decoy choir took up a position outside while the real climate choir entered parliament. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian And then they’re off: with rousing voices that soar up to the lobby’s 10-metre high, lofty stone octagon ceiling, echo round its rich mosaic-covered vault and bounce back off the lobby’s intricately tiled floor, the climate choir sing truth to power – directly to the people making decisions in their names. “Fossil fuel profits are outrageous – Stop Rosebank! Stop Rosebank!” they sing to the tune of Handel’s Hallelujah chorus. “Runaway climate change is very dangerous!” the altos, tenors and basses politely belt out. “We’re in an ecological emergency: no drilling! No drilling!” the rest of the choir harmonise. Jo Flanagan, the co-founder of the Climate Choir Movement , has been planning this protest for months. “We wanted something pretty dramatic: to make a powerful message to all politicians that, the day after the budget, we want more investment in cheaper, renewable energy, not in further extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea. “And in the middle of the present clampdowns on protesters, I hope our different approach flies the flag for peaceful protest too,” she adds. “But goodness, this is nerve-racking!” The Climate Choir Movement has grown rapidly since its inception in autumn 2022. From its Bristol beginnings, there are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. View image in fullscreen There are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Their protests so far – creative, urgent and peaceful calls for environmental change – have been eye-catching: in December, the choirs donned black suits and bowler hats to serenade financial decision-makers in the City in London. Last October, they organised a 100-voice flash choir at the Science Museum . There were songs for Gaia at Bath Abbey in September, and in May dozens of singers from London, Bath, Stroud, Oxford and Southampton interrupted the Barclays Bank AGM. On Thursday they last two and a half minutes before being hustled out by a smiling security guard: “Thank you. Please keep going. There you go.” They file out of the hall extremely slowly, still singing loftily – the conductor waving her hands above to maintain time, to join the decoy choir outside. Their exit takes almost 10 minutes: tourists gape and schoolchildren giggle as they pass. Outside, the two choirs meet and together walk across to College Green and finish their performance. Kate Honey, the composer who rewrote Handel’s lyrics, is ecstatic: “We brought choirs from all over the country to send a simple message to politicians today to ‘Stop Rosebank now: renewables are cleaner, safer and cheaper’,” she says. “Rosebank is a pretty name for a dirty business. It will contribute to destroying the climate but will not lower our bills. The soaring cost of fossil fuels is the cause of much of the current cost of living crisis and people – from UK farmers to its firefighters – are now awake to what is being done to our planet by profiteering oil and gas companies. People want a reliable, affordable energy supply that doesn’t put the planet at risk.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest Green politics London Climate crisis England features Share Reuse this content Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘No drilling! No drilling!’: climate choir sings truth to power in Palace of Westminster This article is more than 1 year old Voices of Climate Choir Movement fill St Stephen’s Hall in group’s most dramatic protest yet Making an elaborate, distracting fuss, the climate choir’s 100-strong decoy choir gets into position on the pavement outside parliament. Police gather and hover nearby. Politicians rush past on their way into the House of Commons, smiling benignly as the decoy choir launches into a hearty, opening song. Distracted by the music, they do not notice that most of the well-dressed people entering St Stephen’s Hall with them are looking nervous and walking stiffly. It is hard, after all, to walk properly when you’ve got a large protest banner stuffed down the leg of your trousers – and are worried that in less than five minutes, you’re going to be arrested in the home of the UK parliament. Johnny Devas is a retired architect, specialising in the gothic architecture that makes parliament one of the most recognised buildings in the world. But on Thursday, his expertise is a ruse – and “architecture” a code word. Once all 100 of the real climate choir protest singers have successfully passed through the airport-style security outside the medieval hall and gathered round, Devas says the magic words: “The architectural tour is about to begin.” View image in fullscreen A decoy choir took up a position outside while the real climate choir entered parliament. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian And then they’re off: with rousing voices that soar up to the lobby’s 10-metre high, lofty stone octagon ceiling, echo round its rich mosaic-covered vault and bounce back off the lobby’s intricately tiled floor, the climate choir sing truth to power – directly to the people making decisions in their names. “Fossil fuel profits are outrageous – Stop Rosebank! Stop Rosebank!” they sing to the tune of Handel’s Hallelujah chorus. “Runaway climate change is very dangerous!” the altos, tenors and basses politely belt out. “We’re in an ecological emergency: no drilling! No drilling!” the rest of the choir harmonise. Jo Flanagan, the co-founder of the Climate Choir Movement , has been planning this protest for months. “We wanted something pretty dramatic: to make a powerful message to all politicians that, the day after the budget, we want more investment in cheaper, renewable energy, not in further extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea. “And in the middle of the present clampdowns on protesters, I hope our different approach flies the flag for peaceful protest too,” she adds. “But goodness, this is nerve-racking!” The Climate Choir Movement has grown rapidly since its inception in autumn 2022. From its Bristol beginnings, there are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. View image in fullscreen There are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Their protests so far – creative, urgent and peaceful calls for environmental change – have been eye-catching: in December, the choirs donned black suits and bowler hats to serenade financial decision-makers in the City in London. Last October, they organised a 100-voice flash choir at the Science Museum . There were songs for Gaia at Bath Abbey in September, and in May dozens of singers from London, Bath, Stroud, Oxford and Southampton interrupted the Barclays Bank AGM. On Thursday they last two and a half minutes before being hustled out by a smiling security guard: “Thank you. Please keep going. There you go.” They file out of the hall extremely slowly, still singing loftily – the conductor waving her hands above to maintain time, to join the decoy choir outside. Their exit takes almost 10 minutes: tourists gape and schoolchildren giggle as they pass. Outside, the two choirs meet and together walk across to College Green and finish their performance. Kate Honey, the composer who rewrote Handel’s lyrics, is ecstatic: “We brought choirs from all over the country to send a simple message to politicians today to ‘Stop Rosebank now: renewables are cleaner, safer and cheaper’,” she says. “Rosebank is a pretty name for a dirty business. It will contribute to destroying the climate but will not lower our bills. The soaring cost of fossil fuels is the cause of much of the current cost of living crisis and people – from UK farmers to its firefighters – are now awake to what is being done to our planet by profiteering oil and gas companies. People want a reliable, affordable energy supply that doesn’t put the planet at risk.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest Green politics London Climate crisis England features Share Reuse this content Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Climate Choir Movement singers outside parliament on Thursday. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old ‘No drilling! No drilling!’: climate choir sings truth to power in Palace of Westminster This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘No drilling! No drilling!’: climate choir sings truth to power in Palace of Westminster This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘No drilling! No drilling!’: climate choir sings truth to power in Palace of Westminster This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Voices of Climate Choir Movement fill St Stephen’s Hall in group’s most dramatic protest yet Voices of Climate Choir Movement fill St Stephen’s Hall in group’s most dramatic protest yet Voices of Climate Choir Movement fill St Stephen’s Hall in group’s most dramatic protest yet Making an elaborate, distracting fuss, the climate choir’s 100-strong decoy choir gets into position on the pavement outside parliament. Police gather and hover nearby. Politicians rush past on their way into the House of Commons, smiling benignly as the decoy choir launches into a hearty, opening song. Distracted by the music, they do not notice that most of the well-dressed people entering St Stephen’s Hall with them are looking nervous and walking stiffly. It is hard, after all, to walk properly when you’ve got a large protest banner stuffed down the leg of your trousers – and are worried that in less than five minutes, you’re going to be arrested in the home of the UK parliament. Johnny Devas is a retired architect, specialising in the gothic architecture that makes parliament one of the most recognised buildings in the world. But on Thursday, his expertise is a ruse – and “architecture” a code word. Once all 100 of the real climate choir protest singers have successfully passed through the airport-style security outside the medieval hall and gathered round, Devas says the magic words: “The architectural tour is about to begin.” View image in fullscreen A decoy choir took up a position outside while the real climate choir entered parliament. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian And then they’re off: with rousing voices that soar up to the lobby’s 10-metre high, lofty stone octagon ceiling, echo round its rich mosaic-covered vault and bounce back off the lobby’s intricately tiled floor, the climate choir sing truth to power – directly to the people making decisions in their names. “Fossil fuel profits are outrageous – Stop Rosebank! Stop Rosebank!” they sing to the tune of Handel’s Hallelujah chorus. “Runaway climate change is very dangerous!” the altos, tenors and basses politely belt out. “We’re in an ecological emergency: no drilling! No drilling!” the rest of the choir harmonise. Jo Flanagan, the co-founder of the Climate Choir Movement , has been planning this protest for months. “We wanted something pretty dramatic: to make a powerful message to all politicians that, the day after the budget, we want more investment in cheaper, renewable energy, not in further extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea. “And in the middle of the present clampdowns on protesters, I hope our different approach flies the flag for peaceful protest too,” she adds. “But goodness, this is nerve-racking!” The Climate Choir Movement has grown rapidly since its inception in autumn 2022. From its Bristol beginnings, there are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. View image in fullscreen There are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Their protests so far – creative, urgent and peaceful calls for environmental change – have been eye-catching: in December, the choirs donned black suits and bowler hats to serenade financial decision-makers in the City in London. Last October, they organised a 100-voice flash choir at the Science Museum . There were songs for Gaia at Bath Abbey in September, and in May dozens of singers from London, Bath, Stroud, Oxford and Southampton interrupted the Barclays Bank AGM. On Thursday they last two and a half minutes before being hustled out by a smiling security guard: “Thank you. Please keep going. There you go.” They file out of the hall extremely slowly, still singing loftily – the conductor waving her hands above to maintain time, to join the decoy choir outside. Their exit takes almost 10 minutes: tourists gape and schoolchildren giggle as they pass. Outside, the two choirs meet and together walk across to College Green and finish their performance. Kate Honey, the composer who rewrote Handel’s lyrics, is ecstatic: “We brought choirs from all over the country to send a simple message to politicians today to ‘Stop Rosebank now: renewables are cleaner, safer and cheaper’,” she says. “Rosebank is a pretty name for a dirty business. It will contribute to destroying the climate but will not lower our bills. The soaring cost of fossil fuels is the cause of much of the current cost of living crisis and people – from UK farmers to its firefighters – are now awake to what is being done to our planet by profiteering oil and gas companies. People want a reliable, affordable energy supply that doesn’t put the planet at risk.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest Green politics London Climate crisis England features Share Reuse this content Making an elaborate, distracting fuss, the climate choir’s 100-strong decoy choir gets into position on the pavement outside parliament. Police gather and hover nearby. Politicians rush past on their way into the House of Commons, smiling benignly as the decoy choir launches into a hearty, opening song. Distracted by the music, they do not notice that most of the well-dressed people entering St Stephen’s Hall with them are looking nervous and walking stiffly. It is hard, after all, to walk properly when you’ve got a large protest banner stuffed down the leg of your trousers – and are worried that in less than five minutes, you’re going to be arrested in the home of the UK parliament. Johnny Devas is a retired architect, specialising in the gothic architecture that makes parliament one of the most recognised buildings in the world. But on Thursday, his expertise is a ruse – and “architecture” a code word. Once all 100 of the real climate choir protest singers have successfully passed through the airport-style security outside the medieval hall and gathered round, Devas says the magic words: “The architectural tour is about to begin.” View image in fullscreen A decoy choir took up a position outside while the real climate choir entered parliament. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian And then they’re off: with rousing voices that soar up to the lobby’s 10-metre high, lofty stone octagon ceiling, echo round its rich mosaic-covered vault and bounce back off the lobby’s intricately tiled floor, the climate choir sing truth to power – directly to the people making decisions in their names. “Fossil fuel profits are outrageous – Stop Rosebank! Stop Rosebank!” they sing to the tune of Handel’s Hallelujah chorus. “Runaway climate change is very dangerous!” the altos, tenors and basses politely belt out. “We’re in an ecological emergency: no drilling! No drilling!” the rest of the choir harmonise. Jo Flanagan, the co-founder of the Climate Choir Movement , has been planning this protest for months. “We wanted something pretty dramatic: to make a powerful message to all politicians that, the day after the budget, we want more investment in cheaper, renewable energy, not in further extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea. “And in the middle of the present clampdowns on protesters, I hope our different approach flies the flag for peaceful protest too,” she adds. “But goodness, this is nerve-racking!” The Climate Choir Movement has grown rapidly since its inception in autumn 2022. From its Bristol beginnings, there are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. View image in fullscreen There are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Their protests so far – creative, urgent and peaceful calls for environmental change – have been eye-catching: in December, the choirs donned black suits and bowler hats to serenade financial decision-makers in the City in London. Last October, they organised a 100-voice flash choir at the Science Museum . There were songs for Gaia at Bath Abbey in September, and in May dozens of singers from London, Bath, Stroud, Oxford and Southampton interrupted the Barclays Bank AGM. On Thursday they last two and a half minutes before being hustled out by a smiling security guard: “Thank you. Please keep going. There you go.” They file out of the hall extremely slowly, still singing loftily – the conductor waving her hands above to maintain time, to join the decoy choir outside. Their exit takes almost 10 minutes: tourists gape and schoolchildren giggle as they pass. Outside, the two choirs meet and together walk across to College Green and finish their performance. Kate Honey, the composer who rewrote Handel’s lyrics, is ecstatic: “We brought choirs from all over the country to send a simple message to politicians today to ‘Stop Rosebank now: renewables are cleaner, safer and cheaper’,” she says. “Rosebank is a pretty name for a dirty business. It will contribute to destroying the climate but will not lower our bills. The soaring cost of fossil fuels is the cause of much of the current cost of living crisis and people – from UK farmers to its firefighters – are now awake to what is being done to our planet by profiteering oil and gas companies. People want a reliable, affordable energy supply that doesn’t put the planet at risk.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest Green politics London Climate crisis England features Share Reuse this content Making an elaborate, distracting fuss, the climate choir’s 100-strong decoy choir gets into position on the pavement outside parliament. Police gather and hover nearby. Politicians rush past on their way into the House of Commons, smiling benignly as the decoy choir launches into a hearty, opening song. Distracted by the music, they do not notice that most of the well-dressed people entering St Stephen’s Hall with them are looking nervous and walking stiffly. It is hard, after all, to walk properly when you’ve got a large protest banner stuffed down the leg of your trousers – and are worried that in less than five minutes, you’re going to be arrested in the home of the UK parliament. Johnny Devas is a retired architect, specialising in the gothic architecture that makes parliament one of the most recognised buildings in the world. But on Thursday, his expertise is a ruse – and “architecture” a code word. Once all 100 of the real climate choir protest singers have successfully passed through the airport-style security outside the medieval hall and gathered round, Devas says the magic words: “The architectural tour is about to begin.” View image in fullscreen A decoy choir took up a position outside while the real climate choir entered parliament. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian And then they’re off: with rousing voices that soar up to the lobby’s 10-metre high, lofty stone octagon ceiling, echo round its rich mosaic-covered vault and bounce back off the lobby’s intricately tiled floor, the climate choir sing truth to power – directly to the people making decisions in their names. “Fossil fuel profits are outrageous – Stop Rosebank! Stop Rosebank!” they sing to the tune of Handel’s Hallelujah chorus. “Runaway climate change is very dangerous!” the altos, tenors and basses politely belt out. “We’re in an ecological emergency: no drilling! No drilling!” the rest of the choir harmonise. Jo Flanagan, the co-founder of the Climate Choir Movement , has been planning this protest for months. “We wanted something pretty dramatic: to make a powerful message to all politicians that, the day after the budget, we want more investment in cheaper, renewable energy, not in further extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea. “And in the middle of the present clampdowns on protesters, I hope our different approach flies the flag for peaceful protest too,” she adds. “But goodness, this is nerve-racking!” The Climate Choir Movement has grown rapidly since its inception in autumn 2022. From its Bristol beginnings, there are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. View image in fullscreen There are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Their protests so far – creative, urgent and peaceful calls for environmental change – have been eye-catching: in December, the choirs donned black suits and bowler hats to serenade financial decision-makers in the City in London. Last October, they organised a 100-voice flash choir at the Science Museum . There were songs for Gaia at Bath Abbey in September, and in May dozens of singers from London, Bath, Stroud, Oxford and Southampton interrupted the Barclays Bank AGM. On Thursday they last two and a half minutes before being hustled out by a smiling security guard: “Thank you. Please keep going. There you go.” They file out of the hall extremely slowly, still singing loftily – the conductor waving her hands above to maintain time, to join the decoy choir outside. Their exit takes almost 10 minutes: tourists gape and schoolchildren giggle as they pass. Outside, the two choirs meet and together walk across to College Green and finish their performance. Kate Honey, the composer who rewrote Handel’s lyrics, is ecstatic: “We brought choirs from all over the country to send a simple message to politicians today to ‘Stop Rosebank now: renewables are cleaner, safer and cheaper’,” she says. “Rosebank is a pretty name for a dirty business. It will contribute to destroying the climate but will not lower our bills. The soaring cost of fossil fuels is the cause of much of the current cost of living crisis and people – from UK farmers to its firefighters – are now awake to what is being done to our planet by profiteering oil and gas companies. People want a reliable, affordable energy supply that doesn’t put the planet at risk.” Making an elaborate, distracting fuss, the climate choir’s 100-strong decoy choir gets into position on the pavement outside parliament. Police gather and hover nearby. Politicians rush past on their way into the House of Commons, smiling benignly as the decoy choir launches into a hearty, opening song. Distracted by the music, they do not notice that most of the well-dressed people entering St Stephen’s Hall with them are looking nervous and walking stiffly. It is hard, after all, to walk properly when you’ve got a large protest banner stuffed down the leg of your trousers – and are worried that in less than five minutes, you’re going to be arrested in the home of the UK parliament. Johnny Devas is a retired architect, specialising in the gothic architecture that makes parliament one of the most recognised buildings in the world. But on Thursday, his expertise is a ruse – and “architecture” a code word. Once all 100 of the real climate choir protest singers have successfully passed through the airport-style security outside the medieval hall and gathered round, Devas says the magic words: “The architectural tour is about to begin.” View image in fullscreen A decoy choir took up a position outside while the real climate choir entered parliament. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian And then they’re off: with rousing voices that soar up to the lobby’s 10-metre high, lofty stone octagon ceiling, echo round its rich mosaic-covered vault and bounce back off the lobby’s intricately tiled floor, the climate choir sing truth to power – directly to the people making decisions in their names. “Fossil fuel profits are outrageous – Stop Rosebank! Stop Rosebank!” they sing to the tune of Handel’s Hallelujah chorus. “Runaway climate change is very dangerous!” the altos, tenors and basses politely belt out. “We’re in an ecological emergency: no drilling! No drilling!” the rest of the choir harmonise. Jo Flanagan, the co-founder of the Climate Choir Movement , has been planning this protest for months. “We wanted something pretty dramatic: to make a powerful message to all politicians that, the day after the budget, we want more investment in cheaper, renewable energy, not in further extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea. “And in the middle of the present clampdowns on protesters, I hope our different approach flies the flag for peaceful protest too,” she adds. “But goodness, this is nerve-racking!” The Climate Choir Movement has grown rapidly since its inception in autumn 2022. From its Bristol beginnings, there are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. View image in fullscreen There are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. Photograph: Graeme Robertson/The Guardian Their protests so far – creative, urgent and peaceful calls for environmental change – have been eye-catching: in December, the choirs donned black suits and bowler hats to serenade financial decision-makers in the City in London. Last October, they organised a 100-voice flash choir at the Science Museum . There were songs for Gaia at Bath Abbey in September, and in May dozens of singers from London, Bath, Stroud, Oxford and Southampton interrupted the Barclays Bank AGM. On Thursday they last two and a half minutes before being hustled out by a smiling security guard: “Thank you. Please keep going. There you go.” They file out of the hall extremely slowly, still singing loftily – the conductor waving her hands above to maintain time, to join the decoy choir outside. Their exit takes almost 10 minutes: tourists gape and schoolchildren giggle as they pass. Outside, the two choirs meet and together walk across to College Green and finish their performance. Kate Honey, the composer who rewrote Handel’s lyrics, is ecstatic: “We brought choirs from all over the country to send a simple message to politicians today to ‘Stop Rosebank now: renewables are cleaner, safer and cheaper’,” she says. “Rosebank is a pretty name for a dirty business. It will contribute to destroying the climate but will not lower our bills. The soaring cost of fossil fuels is the cause of much of the current cost of living crisis and people – from UK farmers to its firefighters – are now awake to what is being done to our planet by profiteering oil and gas companies. People want a reliable, affordable energy supply that doesn’t put the planet at risk.” Making an elaborate, distracting fuss, the climate choir’s 100-strong decoy choir gets into position on the pavement outside parliament. Police gather and hover nearby. Politicians rush past on their way into the House of Commons, smiling benignly as the decoy choir launches into a hearty, opening song. Distracted by the music, they do not notice that most of the well-dressed people entering St Stephen’s Hall with them are looking nervous and walking stiffly. It is hard, after all, to walk properly when you’ve got a large protest banner stuffed down the leg of your trousers – and are worried that in less than five minutes, you’re going to be arrested in the home of the UK parliament. Johnny Devas is a retired architect, specialising in the gothic architecture that makes parliament one of the most recognised buildings in the world. But on Thursday, his expertise is a ruse – and “architecture” a code word. Once all 100 of the real climate choir protest singers have successfully passed through the airport-style security outside the medieval hall and gathered round, Devas says the magic words: “The architectural tour is about to begin.” And then they’re off: with rousing voices that soar up to the lobby’s 10-metre high, lofty stone octagon ceiling, echo round its rich mosaic-covered vault and bounce back off the lobby’s intricately tiled floor, the climate choir sing truth to power – directly to the people making decisions in their names. “Fossil fuel profits are outrageous – Stop Rosebank! Stop Rosebank!” they sing to the tune of Handel’s Hallelujah chorus. “Runaway climate change is very dangerous!” the altos, tenors and basses politely belt out. “We’re in an ecological emergency: no drilling! No drilling!” the rest of the choir harmonise. Jo Flanagan, the co-founder of the Climate Choir Movement , has been planning this protest for months. “We wanted something pretty dramatic: to make a powerful message to all politicians that, the day after the budget, we want more investment in cheaper, renewable energy, not in further extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea. “And in the middle of the present clampdowns on protesters, I hope our different approach flies the flag for peaceful protest too,” she adds. “But goodness, this is nerve-racking!” The Climate Choir Movement has grown rapidly since its inception in autumn 2022. From its Bristol beginnings, there are now more than 700 members in 12 climate choirs in England and Wales, with three more choirs pending. Their protests so far – creative, urgent and peaceful calls for environmental change – have been eye-catching: in December, the choirs donned black suits and bowler hats to serenade financial decision-makers in the City in London. Last October, they organised a 100-voice flash choir at the Science Museum . There were songs for Gaia at Bath Abbey in September, and in May dozens of singers from London, Bath, Stroud, Oxford and Southampton interrupted the Barclays Bank AGM. On Thursday they last two and a half minutes before being hustled out by a smiling security guard: “Thank you. Please keep going. There you go.” They file out of the hall extremely slowly, still singing loftily – the conductor waving her hands above to maintain time, to join the decoy choir outside. Their exit takes almost 10 minutes: tourists gape and schoolchildren giggle as they pass. Outside, the two choirs meet and together walk across to College Green and finish their performance. Kate Honey, the composer who rewrote Handel’s lyrics, is ecstatic: “We brought choirs from all over the country to send a simple message to politicians today to ‘Stop Rosebank now: renewables are cleaner, safer and cheaper’,” she says. “Rosebank is a pretty name for a dirty business. It will contribute to destroying the climate but will not lower our bills. The soaring cost of fossil fuels is the cause of much of the current cost of living crisis and people – from UK farmers to its firefighters – are now awake to what is being done to our planet by profiteering oil and gas companies. People want a reliable, affordable energy supply that doesn’t put the planet at risk.” Explore more on these topics Environmental activism Protest Green politics London Climate crisis England features Share Reuse this content Environmental activism Protest Green politics London Climate crisis England features |
UK politics: Sunak refuses to say how abolition of national insurance would be funded – as it happened
Rishi Sunak has declined to say how his long-term plan to abolish employees’ national insurance might be funded. In an interview for broadcasters, asked about this, he said: I think what people can see from me, I think they trust me on these things, is that I will always do this responsibly. We funded our current tax cuts responsibly, borrowing hasn’t increased, we are still on track to meet our fiscal rules that have our debt falling. At the No 10 lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson also declined to say how the government might fund this proposal. And he refused to say whether the government was considering forgoing the entire £46bn it gets from national insurance, or whether it was considering getting rid of national insurance by merging it with income tax, which might result in income tax having to rise. In an interview this morning Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, said one option would be to merge income tax and national insurance. |
Is Britain really in the grip of extremism or mob rule?
Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Is Britain really in the grip of extremism or mob rule? This article is more than 1 year old Daniel Boffey Chief reporter Rishi Sunak spoke of a ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption’ – but critics warn voices are being silenced and that the UK’s ‘pluralist tolerance’ is at risk It’s not what anyone would want for a school. As well as educating more than 1,300 children, the teachers at Barclay primary school in Leyton, east London, have been meeting weekly with police to discuss “new evidence of online abuse and criminality”. A bitter row over whether children may wear pro-Palestinian pins, flags and badges on their uniforms prompted a war of words involving parents, with one protester standing outside the school gates with a placard saying: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” . The school even had to close early for the Christmas break amid fears over the wellbeing of staff. “Do not let the misguided actions of a disaffected few be the reason [the children’s education] is disrupted further,” parents were urged in a letter from the Lion Academy Trust. To some, the unsettling events at Barclay school, where pupils aged 3 to 11 are taught in what Ofsted described in 2021 as a “friendly” and “outstanding” setting, will be taken as further evidence that Britain has a problem with extremism. Just as the streets of London are said to have been taken over by protesters threatening “mob rule”, as the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, put it last week , so Barclay school is seen by some as held to ransom by extremists using “malicious misinformation”, as the school has described it. Another viewpoint is that the events at Barclay school highlight what can happen when people feel they are losing their voice. The trouble at the school had started when the parents of children who had dressed up in Palestinian colours at a Children in Need day were sent letters threatening referrals to the government’s anti-radicalisation programme, Prevent . They were told not to use their children as “political pawns”. There were then claims, vehemently denied, that an eight-year-old from a Palestinian family had been “bullied” by staff for refusing to remove a Palestine flag patch from his uniform. A dark pattern runs through British politics: when the powerful lose control, protesters suffer | Owen Jones Read more The fact that the school had written to parents in February 2022 to express horror at the events that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and to encourage fundraising for humanitarian relief, drew claims of double standards. But, perhaps more importantly for some parents, events were unfolding in a context where ministers have been making headlines by condemning the pro-Palestine “hate marches” , and most recently condemning “mob rule” . “The school essentially just made policy up to clamp down [on] pro-Palestinian sentiment of any description,” said one parent, an NHS surgeon who has three children at Barclay primary. “It’s completely from the top. People at Barclay have been allowed to get away with it because it’s endorsed by the UK government.” Last Friday evening, Sunak made a hastily arranged speech on the steps of Downing Street – an unusual event that signalled gravity and urgency. “In recent weeks and months, we have seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality,” the prime minister declared. “What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.” The comments may have been motivated by death threats against MPs and the recent chaos in parliament over a vote on Gaza – but it was those demonstrating in support of Palestinians under Israeli bombardment that were clearly on his mind. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. The intervention seemed to go down well among Conservative backbenchers, and some asked why it had taken so long for the prime minister to speak out. Elsewhere, however, it appears to have prompted a different set of questions. Is Britain really in the grip of extremists who are “trying to tear us apart”, as the prime minister suggested? Or, instead, is there an attempt to silence certain voices through false conflations of extremism and passionate protest, leading Britain down a dangerous road? Dame Sara Khan, who was the government’s counter-extremism commissioner and is now carrying out a social cohesion and democratic resilience review for the communities secretary, Michael Gove, is in full agreement with the prime minister that Britain has an extremism problem – but it is nothing new, she suggested. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more There was a 2013 government extremism taskforce and a 2015 counter-extremism strategy. Then Khan’s 2021 report, Operating with Impunity , made further calls for action, lamenting the gaps in legislation that allowed neo-Nazi organisations such as Combat 18 to exist and the Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary to allegedly “motivate at least 70-100 people to turn to terrorism”. He was eventually convicted in 2016 for the terror offence of inviting support for the terrorist group Daesh. But, Khan said, it was vital to be clear about what the government wanted to target – a clarity that was missing in some of the commentary, she suggested. “I think it’s really important that we don’t conflate those protesters, somehow saying or portraying them as somehow as being all extremists,” she told the Guardian. “What I’ve been really uncomfortable with over the last couple of weeks is the kind of argument that they’re all Islamist extremists on these demonstrations. I think that’s actually outrageous. Some are not even pro-Palestinian people, just anti-war. There are clearly Jewish people there, there’s a whole range of people there, and to try to frame these demonstrations as Islamist extremism is completely far-fetched and untrue.” She went on: “It’s about precision of language. If you are not concise about it, you’re just going to further anger people, if you are not listening to what people are saying.” Claims of rampant criminality at the demonstrations, often attended by hundreds of thousands of people, also appear to be at odds with the facts on the ground. At the last pro-Palestine march in London there were just 12 arrests. This compares with 36 arrests at the Glastonbury music festival in 2023. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion According to the Metropolitan police, of the 238 arrests made by police at pro-Palestine protests between October and December last year, only 35 have been charged, while three penalty notices and four cautions were also issued. Jude Lanchin, a solicitor for Bindmans who has represented 23 people arrested at the protests, said that many of the cases were “questionable and not based on sufficient reasonable suspicion that an offence has actually been committed”. “Out of 23 cases from October to date, only two of my clients have been charged,” she said. “A number have had the investigation dropped and others are subject to unreasonably long bail periods, although charges are unlikely to be brought. Other clients have been threatened with arrest when their actions clearly do not constitute a criminal offence.” Sunak had suggested in his Downing Street speech that a dearth of arrests of those at pro-Palestine protests may be due to a lack of rigour by the police. The Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley this week responded that “to suggest that we are not where the law permits, as the law allows, policing robustly is not accurate”. The perception of some that the government is seeking to make political capital out of the crisis in Gaza, by drawing dividing lines between those who support the “extremists” offering support for Palestinians, and the rest, has been strengthened by the fact that ministers are expected next week to announce a new definition of extremism, determining the organisations that Whitehall will be prohibited from engaging with. According to leaked drafts, it will include groups active in “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on intolerance, hatred or violence that aims to undermine the rights or freedoms of others”, including “those who seek to undermine or overturn the UK’s liberal system of democracy and democratic rights”. It is not a move that Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said he was comfortable with. Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country Read more “If you say a touchstone of British values is, for example, tolerance towards gay people then you end up saying that people who are religiously committed to saying that homosexuality is a sin are extremists,” he said. “Then you end up creating a situation in which the UK’s … famously pluralist tolerance towards different belief systems is not tolerant towards that belief system. So it’s really hard to try and work out what are the touchstones for British values.” Among the organisations that the government has suggested will remain in the cold is the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Links were first suspended in 2009 in a row over comments by one its leaders about Gaza . But why aren’t conversations happening now, the organisation asks. “How can we move past things if you’re not talking to us?” asked Zara Mohammed, who was appointed as the MCB’s first female secretary general three years ago. “I’m a new secretary general, we’re in 2024. What is the issue now? We are the largest and most diverse represented body in the country. Who are you talking to when it comes to Muslims?” Back at Barclay school, tensions remain high. “There has been no ‘heavy handedness’ towards any religious, cultural or ethnic sector of the broad and diverse community we serve,” a spokesperson for the school said. “The very vast majority of parents are happy to comply with the school’s uniform policy – and only a tiny minority of adults who sought to exploit Children in Need for their political views have caused this disruption.” Some of the 200 protesting parents have said they are considering taking her children out of the school. Sunak’s comments on the steps of Downing Street had only confirmed to some, they said, that they were not to be permitted a voice. Sir David Ormand, a former director of GCHQ, the UK’s intelligence, security and cyber agency, who was a key player in designing Britain’s counter-extremism and terrorism strategies in the 2000s, said upset and angst was the goal of the enemies of a multicultural Britain. “The acid test of Sunak’s statement is, do people now feel less angry?” Ormand said. “Do the people, the communities concerned, feel less frightened [after his speech] and are we all less cynical that the public interest is being sacrificed to party management interests? The answer is probably [he is] failing on all three.” Explore more on these topics Politics Rishi Sunak Protest Police Gaza analysis Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Is Britain really in the grip of extremism or mob rule? This article is more than 1 year old Daniel Boffey Chief reporter Rishi Sunak spoke of a ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption’ – but critics warn voices are being silenced and that the UK’s ‘pluralist tolerance’ is at risk It’s not what anyone would want for a school. As well as educating more than 1,300 children, the teachers at Barclay primary school in Leyton, east London, have been meeting weekly with police to discuss “new evidence of online abuse and criminality”. A bitter row over whether children may wear pro-Palestinian pins, flags and badges on their uniforms prompted a war of words involving parents, with one protester standing outside the school gates with a placard saying: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” . The school even had to close early for the Christmas break amid fears over the wellbeing of staff. “Do not let the misguided actions of a disaffected few be the reason [the children’s education] is disrupted further,” parents were urged in a letter from the Lion Academy Trust. To some, the unsettling events at Barclay school, where pupils aged 3 to 11 are taught in what Ofsted described in 2021 as a “friendly” and “outstanding” setting, will be taken as further evidence that Britain has a problem with extremism. Just as the streets of London are said to have been taken over by protesters threatening “mob rule”, as the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, put it last week , so Barclay school is seen by some as held to ransom by extremists using “malicious misinformation”, as the school has described it. Another viewpoint is that the events at Barclay school highlight what can happen when people feel they are losing their voice. The trouble at the school had started when the parents of children who had dressed up in Palestinian colours at a Children in Need day were sent letters threatening referrals to the government’s anti-radicalisation programme, Prevent . They were told not to use their children as “political pawns”. There were then claims, vehemently denied, that an eight-year-old from a Palestinian family had been “bullied” by staff for refusing to remove a Palestine flag patch from his uniform. A dark pattern runs through British politics: when the powerful lose control, protesters suffer | Owen Jones Read more The fact that the school had written to parents in February 2022 to express horror at the events that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and to encourage fundraising for humanitarian relief, drew claims of double standards. But, perhaps more importantly for some parents, events were unfolding in a context where ministers have been making headlines by condemning the pro-Palestine “hate marches” , and most recently condemning “mob rule” . “The school essentially just made policy up to clamp down [on] pro-Palestinian sentiment of any description,” said one parent, an NHS surgeon who has three children at Barclay primary. “It’s completely from the top. People at Barclay have been allowed to get away with it because it’s endorsed by the UK government.” Last Friday evening, Sunak made a hastily arranged speech on the steps of Downing Street – an unusual event that signalled gravity and urgency. “In recent weeks and months, we have seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality,” the prime minister declared. “What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.” The comments may have been motivated by death threats against MPs and the recent chaos in parliament over a vote on Gaza – but it was those demonstrating in support of Palestinians under Israeli bombardment that were clearly on his mind. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. The intervention seemed to go down well among Conservative backbenchers, and some asked why it had taken so long for the prime minister to speak out. Elsewhere, however, it appears to have prompted a different set of questions. Is Britain really in the grip of extremists who are “trying to tear us apart”, as the prime minister suggested? Or, instead, is there an attempt to silence certain voices through false conflations of extremism and passionate protest, leading Britain down a dangerous road? Dame Sara Khan, who was the government’s counter-extremism commissioner and is now carrying out a social cohesion and democratic resilience review for the communities secretary, Michael Gove, is in full agreement with the prime minister that Britain has an extremism problem – but it is nothing new, she suggested. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more There was a 2013 government extremism taskforce and a 2015 counter-extremism strategy. Then Khan’s 2021 report, Operating with Impunity , made further calls for action, lamenting the gaps in legislation that allowed neo-Nazi organisations such as Combat 18 to exist and the Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary to allegedly “motivate at least 70-100 people to turn to terrorism”. He was eventually convicted in 2016 for the terror offence of inviting support for the terrorist group Daesh. But, Khan said, it was vital to be clear about what the government wanted to target – a clarity that was missing in some of the commentary, she suggested. “I think it’s really important that we don’t conflate those protesters, somehow saying or portraying them as somehow as being all extremists,” she told the Guardian. “What I’ve been really uncomfortable with over the last couple of weeks is the kind of argument that they’re all Islamist extremists on these demonstrations. I think that’s actually outrageous. Some are not even pro-Palestinian people, just anti-war. There are clearly Jewish people there, there’s a whole range of people there, and to try to frame these demonstrations as Islamist extremism is completely far-fetched and untrue.” She went on: “It’s about precision of language. If you are not concise about it, you’re just going to further anger people, if you are not listening to what people are saying.” Claims of rampant criminality at the demonstrations, often attended by hundreds of thousands of people, also appear to be at odds with the facts on the ground. At the last pro-Palestine march in London there were just 12 arrests. This compares with 36 arrests at the Glastonbury music festival in 2023. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion According to the Metropolitan police, of the 238 arrests made by police at pro-Palestine protests between October and December last year, only 35 have been charged, while three penalty notices and four cautions were also issued. Jude Lanchin, a solicitor for Bindmans who has represented 23 people arrested at the protests, said that many of the cases were “questionable and not based on sufficient reasonable suspicion that an offence has actually been committed”. “Out of 23 cases from October to date, only two of my clients have been charged,” she said. “A number have had the investigation dropped and others are subject to unreasonably long bail periods, although charges are unlikely to be brought. Other clients have been threatened with arrest when their actions clearly do not constitute a criminal offence.” Sunak had suggested in his Downing Street speech that a dearth of arrests of those at pro-Palestine protests may be due to a lack of rigour by the police. The Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley this week responded that “to suggest that we are not where the law permits, as the law allows, policing robustly is not accurate”. The perception of some that the government is seeking to make political capital out of the crisis in Gaza, by drawing dividing lines between those who support the “extremists” offering support for Palestinians, and the rest, has been strengthened by the fact that ministers are expected next week to announce a new definition of extremism, determining the organisations that Whitehall will be prohibited from engaging with. According to leaked drafts, it will include groups active in “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on intolerance, hatred or violence that aims to undermine the rights or freedoms of others”, including “those who seek to undermine or overturn the UK’s liberal system of democracy and democratic rights”. It is not a move that Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said he was comfortable with. Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country Read more “If you say a touchstone of British values is, for example, tolerance towards gay people then you end up saying that people who are religiously committed to saying that homosexuality is a sin are extremists,” he said. “Then you end up creating a situation in which the UK’s … famously pluralist tolerance towards different belief systems is not tolerant towards that belief system. So it’s really hard to try and work out what are the touchstones for British values.” Among the organisations that the government has suggested will remain in the cold is the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Links were first suspended in 2009 in a row over comments by one its leaders about Gaza . But why aren’t conversations happening now, the organisation asks. “How can we move past things if you’re not talking to us?” asked Zara Mohammed, who was appointed as the MCB’s first female secretary general three years ago. “I’m a new secretary general, we’re in 2024. What is the issue now? We are the largest and most diverse represented body in the country. Who are you talking to when it comes to Muslims?” Back at Barclay school, tensions remain high. “There has been no ‘heavy handedness’ towards any religious, cultural or ethnic sector of the broad and diverse community we serve,” a spokesperson for the school said. “The very vast majority of parents are happy to comply with the school’s uniform policy – and only a tiny minority of adults who sought to exploit Children in Need for their political views have caused this disruption.” Some of the 200 protesting parents have said they are considering taking her children out of the school. Sunak’s comments on the steps of Downing Street had only confirmed to some, they said, that they were not to be permitted a voice. Sir David Ormand, a former director of GCHQ, the UK’s intelligence, security and cyber agency, who was a key player in designing Britain’s counter-extremism and terrorism strategies in the 2000s, said upset and angst was the goal of the enemies of a multicultural Britain. “The acid test of Sunak’s statement is, do people now feel less angry?” Ormand said. “Do the people, the communities concerned, feel less frightened [after his speech] and are we all less cynical that the public interest is being sacrificed to party management interests? The answer is probably [he is] failing on all three.” Explore more on these topics Politics Rishi Sunak Protest Police Gaza analysis Share Reuse this content Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images Rishi Sunak at the press conference on 1 March when he warned of ‘a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality. What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.’ Photograph: Carl Court/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Is Britain really in the grip of extremism or mob rule? This article is more than 1 year old Daniel Boffey Chief reporter This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Is Britain really in the grip of extremism or mob rule? This article is more than 1 year old Daniel Boffey Chief reporter This article is more than 1 year old Analysis Is Britain really in the grip of extremism or mob rule? This article is more than 1 year old Daniel Boffey Chief reporter This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Rishi Sunak spoke of a ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption’ – but critics warn voices are being silenced and that the UK’s ‘pluralist tolerance’ is at risk Rishi Sunak spoke of a ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption’ – but critics warn voices are being silenced and that the UK’s ‘pluralist tolerance’ is at risk Rishi Sunak spoke of a ‘shocking increase in extremist disruption’ – but critics warn voices are being silenced and that the UK’s ‘pluralist tolerance’ is at risk It’s not what anyone would want for a school. As well as educating more than 1,300 children, the teachers at Barclay primary school in Leyton, east London, have been meeting weekly with police to discuss “new evidence of online abuse and criminality”. A bitter row over whether children may wear pro-Palestinian pins, flags and badges on their uniforms prompted a war of words involving parents, with one protester standing outside the school gates with a placard saying: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” . The school even had to close early for the Christmas break amid fears over the wellbeing of staff. “Do not let the misguided actions of a disaffected few be the reason [the children’s education] is disrupted further,” parents were urged in a letter from the Lion Academy Trust. To some, the unsettling events at Barclay school, where pupils aged 3 to 11 are taught in what Ofsted described in 2021 as a “friendly” and “outstanding” setting, will be taken as further evidence that Britain has a problem with extremism. Just as the streets of London are said to have been taken over by protesters threatening “mob rule”, as the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, put it last week , so Barclay school is seen by some as held to ransom by extremists using “malicious misinformation”, as the school has described it. Another viewpoint is that the events at Barclay school highlight what can happen when people feel they are losing their voice. The trouble at the school had started when the parents of children who had dressed up in Palestinian colours at a Children in Need day were sent letters threatening referrals to the government’s anti-radicalisation programme, Prevent . They were told not to use their children as “political pawns”. There were then claims, vehemently denied, that an eight-year-old from a Palestinian family had been “bullied” by staff for refusing to remove a Palestine flag patch from his uniform. A dark pattern runs through British politics: when the powerful lose control, protesters suffer | Owen Jones Read more The fact that the school had written to parents in February 2022 to express horror at the events that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and to encourage fundraising for humanitarian relief, drew claims of double standards. But, perhaps more importantly for some parents, events were unfolding in a context where ministers have been making headlines by condemning the pro-Palestine “hate marches” , and most recently condemning “mob rule” . “The school essentially just made policy up to clamp down [on] pro-Palestinian sentiment of any description,” said one parent, an NHS surgeon who has three children at Barclay primary. “It’s completely from the top. People at Barclay have been allowed to get away with it because it’s endorsed by the UK government.” Last Friday evening, Sunak made a hastily arranged speech on the steps of Downing Street – an unusual event that signalled gravity and urgency. “In recent weeks and months, we have seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality,” the prime minister declared. “What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.” The comments may have been motivated by death threats against MPs and the recent chaos in parliament over a vote on Gaza – but it was those demonstrating in support of Palestinians under Israeli bombardment that were clearly on his mind. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. The intervention seemed to go down well among Conservative backbenchers, and some asked why it had taken so long for the prime minister to speak out. Elsewhere, however, it appears to have prompted a different set of questions. Is Britain really in the grip of extremists who are “trying to tear us apart”, as the prime minister suggested? Or, instead, is there an attempt to silence certain voices through false conflations of extremism and passionate protest, leading Britain down a dangerous road? Dame Sara Khan, who was the government’s counter-extremism commissioner and is now carrying out a social cohesion and democratic resilience review for the communities secretary, Michael Gove, is in full agreement with the prime minister that Britain has an extremism problem – but it is nothing new, she suggested. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more There was a 2013 government extremism taskforce and a 2015 counter-extremism strategy. Then Khan’s 2021 report, Operating with Impunity , made further calls for action, lamenting the gaps in legislation that allowed neo-Nazi organisations such as Combat 18 to exist and the Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary to allegedly “motivate at least 70-100 people to turn to terrorism”. He was eventually convicted in 2016 for the terror offence of inviting support for the terrorist group Daesh. But, Khan said, it was vital to be clear about what the government wanted to target – a clarity that was missing in some of the commentary, she suggested. “I think it’s really important that we don’t conflate those protesters, somehow saying or portraying them as somehow as being all extremists,” she told the Guardian. “What I’ve been really uncomfortable with over the last couple of weeks is the kind of argument that they’re all Islamist extremists on these demonstrations. I think that’s actually outrageous. Some are not even pro-Palestinian people, just anti-war. There are clearly Jewish people there, there’s a whole range of people there, and to try to frame these demonstrations as Islamist extremism is completely far-fetched and untrue.” She went on: “It’s about precision of language. If you are not concise about it, you’re just going to further anger people, if you are not listening to what people are saying.” Claims of rampant criminality at the demonstrations, often attended by hundreds of thousands of people, also appear to be at odds with the facts on the ground. At the last pro-Palestine march in London there were just 12 arrests. This compares with 36 arrests at the Glastonbury music festival in 2023. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion According to the Metropolitan police, of the 238 arrests made by police at pro-Palestine protests between October and December last year, only 35 have been charged, while three penalty notices and four cautions were also issued. Jude Lanchin, a solicitor for Bindmans who has represented 23 people arrested at the protests, said that many of the cases were “questionable and not based on sufficient reasonable suspicion that an offence has actually been committed”. “Out of 23 cases from October to date, only two of my clients have been charged,” she said. “A number have had the investigation dropped and others are subject to unreasonably long bail periods, although charges are unlikely to be brought. Other clients have been threatened with arrest when their actions clearly do not constitute a criminal offence.” Sunak had suggested in his Downing Street speech that a dearth of arrests of those at pro-Palestine protests may be due to a lack of rigour by the police. The Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley this week responded that “to suggest that we are not where the law permits, as the law allows, policing robustly is not accurate”. The perception of some that the government is seeking to make political capital out of the crisis in Gaza, by drawing dividing lines between those who support the “extremists” offering support for Palestinians, and the rest, has been strengthened by the fact that ministers are expected next week to announce a new definition of extremism, determining the organisations that Whitehall will be prohibited from engaging with. According to leaked drafts, it will include groups active in “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on intolerance, hatred or violence that aims to undermine the rights or freedoms of others”, including “those who seek to undermine or overturn the UK’s liberal system of democracy and democratic rights”. It is not a move that Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said he was comfortable with. Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country Read more “If you say a touchstone of British values is, for example, tolerance towards gay people then you end up saying that people who are religiously committed to saying that homosexuality is a sin are extremists,” he said. “Then you end up creating a situation in which the UK’s … famously pluralist tolerance towards different belief systems is not tolerant towards that belief system. So it’s really hard to try and work out what are the touchstones for British values.” Among the organisations that the government has suggested will remain in the cold is the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Links were first suspended in 2009 in a row over comments by one its leaders about Gaza . But why aren’t conversations happening now, the organisation asks. “How can we move past things if you’re not talking to us?” asked Zara Mohammed, who was appointed as the MCB’s first female secretary general three years ago. “I’m a new secretary general, we’re in 2024. What is the issue now? We are the largest and most diverse represented body in the country. Who are you talking to when it comes to Muslims?” Back at Barclay school, tensions remain high. “There has been no ‘heavy handedness’ towards any religious, cultural or ethnic sector of the broad and diverse community we serve,” a spokesperson for the school said. “The very vast majority of parents are happy to comply with the school’s uniform policy – and only a tiny minority of adults who sought to exploit Children in Need for their political views have caused this disruption.” Some of the 200 protesting parents have said they are considering taking her children out of the school. Sunak’s comments on the steps of Downing Street had only confirmed to some, they said, that they were not to be permitted a voice. Sir David Ormand, a former director of GCHQ, the UK’s intelligence, security and cyber agency, who was a key player in designing Britain’s counter-extremism and terrorism strategies in the 2000s, said upset and angst was the goal of the enemies of a multicultural Britain. “The acid test of Sunak’s statement is, do people now feel less angry?” Ormand said. “Do the people, the communities concerned, feel less frightened [after his speech] and are we all less cynical that the public interest is being sacrificed to party management interests? The answer is probably [he is] failing on all three.” Explore more on these topics Politics Rishi Sunak Protest Police Gaza analysis Share Reuse this content It’s not what anyone would want for a school. As well as educating more than 1,300 children, the teachers at Barclay primary school in Leyton, east London, have been meeting weekly with police to discuss “new evidence of online abuse and criminality”. A bitter row over whether children may wear pro-Palestinian pins, flags and badges on their uniforms prompted a war of words involving parents, with one protester standing outside the school gates with a placard saying: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” . The school even had to close early for the Christmas break amid fears over the wellbeing of staff. “Do not let the misguided actions of a disaffected few be the reason [the children’s education] is disrupted further,” parents were urged in a letter from the Lion Academy Trust. To some, the unsettling events at Barclay school, where pupils aged 3 to 11 are taught in what Ofsted described in 2021 as a “friendly” and “outstanding” setting, will be taken as further evidence that Britain has a problem with extremism. Just as the streets of London are said to have been taken over by protesters threatening “mob rule”, as the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, put it last week , so Barclay school is seen by some as held to ransom by extremists using “malicious misinformation”, as the school has described it. Another viewpoint is that the events at Barclay school highlight what can happen when people feel they are losing their voice. The trouble at the school had started when the parents of children who had dressed up in Palestinian colours at a Children in Need day were sent letters threatening referrals to the government’s anti-radicalisation programme, Prevent . They were told not to use their children as “political pawns”. There were then claims, vehemently denied, that an eight-year-old from a Palestinian family had been “bullied” by staff for refusing to remove a Palestine flag patch from his uniform. A dark pattern runs through British politics: when the powerful lose control, protesters suffer | Owen Jones Read more The fact that the school had written to parents in February 2022 to express horror at the events that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and to encourage fundraising for humanitarian relief, drew claims of double standards. But, perhaps more importantly for some parents, events were unfolding in a context where ministers have been making headlines by condemning the pro-Palestine “hate marches” , and most recently condemning “mob rule” . “The school essentially just made policy up to clamp down [on] pro-Palestinian sentiment of any description,” said one parent, an NHS surgeon who has three children at Barclay primary. “It’s completely from the top. People at Barclay have been allowed to get away with it because it’s endorsed by the UK government.” Last Friday evening, Sunak made a hastily arranged speech on the steps of Downing Street – an unusual event that signalled gravity and urgency. “In recent weeks and months, we have seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality,” the prime minister declared. “What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence.” The comments may have been motivated by death threats against MPs and the recent chaos in parliament over a vote on Gaza – but it was those demonstrating in support of Palestinians under Israeli bombardment that were clearly on his mind. “Don’t let the extremists hijack your marches,” Sunak said. The intervention seemed to go down well among Conservative backbenchers, and some asked why it had taken so long for the prime minister to speak out. Elsewhere, however, it appears to have prompted a different set of questions. Is Britain really in the grip of extremists who are “trying to tear us apart”, as the prime minister suggested? Or, instead, is there an attempt to silence certain voices through false conflations of extremism and passionate protest, leading Britain down a dangerous road? Dame Sara Khan, who was the government’s counter-extremism commissioner and is now carrying out a social cohesion and democratic resilience review for the communities secretary, Michael Gove, is in full agreement with the prime minister that Britain has an extremism problem – but it is nothing new, she suggested. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more There was a 2013 government extremism taskforce and a 2015 counter-extremism strategy. Then Khan’s 2021 report, Operating with Impunity , made further calls for action, lamenting the gaps in legislation that allowed neo-Nazi organisations such as Combat 18 to exist and the Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary to allegedly “motivate at least 70-100 people to turn to terrorism”. He was eventually convicted in 2016 for the terror offence of inviting support for the terrorist group Daesh. But, Khan said, it was vital to be clear about what the government wanted to target – a clarity that was missing in some of the commentary, she suggested. “I think it’s really important that we don’t conflate those protesters, somehow saying or portraying them as somehow as being all extremists,” she told the Guardian. “What I’ve been really uncomfortable with over the last couple of weeks is the kind of argument that they’re all Islamist extremists on these demonstrations. I think that’s actually outrageous. Some are not even pro-Palestinian people, just anti-war. There are clearly Jewish people there, there’s a whole range of people there, and to try to frame these demonstrations as Islamist extremism is completely far-fetched and untrue.” She went on: “It’s about precision of language. If you are not concise about it, you’re just going to further anger people, if you are not listening to what people are saying.” Claims of rampant criminality at the demonstrations, often attended by hundreds of thousands of people, also appear to be at odds with the facts on the ground. At the last pro-Palestine march in London there were just 12 arrests. This compares with 36 arrests at the Glastonbury music festival in 2023. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion According to the Metropolitan police, of the 238 arrests made by police at pro-Palestine protests between October and December last year, only 35 have been charged, while three penalty notices and four cautions were also issued. Jude Lanchin, a solicitor for Bindmans who has represented 23 people arrested at the protests, said that many of the cases were “questionable and not based on sufficient reasonable suspicion that an offence has actually been committed”. “Out of 23 cases from October to date, only two of my clients have been charged,” she said. “A number have had the investigation dropped and others are subject to unreasonably long bail periods, although charges are unlikely to be brought. Other clients have been threatened with arrest when their actions clearly do not constitute a criminal offence.” Sunak had suggested in his Downing Street speech that a dearth of arrests of those at pro-Palestine protests may be due to a lack of rigour by the police. The Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley this week responded that “to suggest that we are not where the law permits, as the law allows, policing robustly is not accurate”. The perception of some that the government is seeking to make political capital out of the crisis in Gaza, by drawing dividing lines between those who support the “extremists” offering support for Palestinians, and the rest, has been strengthened by the fact that ministers are expected next week to announce a new definition of extremism, determining the organisations that Whitehall will be prohibited from engaging with. According to leaked drafts, it will include groups active in “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on intolerance, hatred or violence that aims to undermine the rights or freedoms of others”, including “those who seek to undermine or overturn the UK’s liberal system of democracy and democratic rights”. It is not a move that Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said he was comfortable with. Rish! purposefully grips his lectern – but shows he has no grip of the country Read more “If you say a touchstone of British values is, for example, tolerance towards gay people then you end up saying that people who are religiously committed to saying that homosexuality is a sin are extremists,” he said. “Then you end up creating a situation in which the UK’s … famously pluralist tolerance towards different belief systems is not tolerant towards that belief system. So it’s really hard to try and work out what are the touchstones for British values.” Among the organisations that the government has suggested will remain in the cold is the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Links were first suspended in 2009 in a row over comments by one its leaders about Gaza . But why aren’t conversations happening now, the organisation asks. “How can we move past things if you’re not talking to us?” asked Zara Mohammed, who was appointed as the MCB’s first female secretary general three years ago. “I’m a new secretary general, we’re in 2024. What is the issue now? We are the largest and most diverse represented body in the country. Who are you talking to when it comes to Muslims?” Back at Barclay school, tensions remain high. “There has been no ‘heavy handedness’ towards any religious, cultural or ethnic sector of the broad and diverse community we serve,” a spokesperson for the school said. “The very vast majority of parents are happy to comply with the school’s uniform policy – and only a tiny minority of adults who sought to exploit Children in Need for their political views have caused this disruption.” Some of the 200 protesting parents have said they are considering taking her children out of the school. Sunak’s comments on the steps of Downing Street had only confirmed to some, they said, that they were not to be permitted a voice. Sir David Ormand, a former director of GCHQ, the UK’s intelligence, security and cyber agency, who was a key player in designing Britain’s counter-extremism and terrorism strategies in the 2000s, said upset and angst was the goal of the enemies of a multicultural Britain. “The acid test of Sunak’s statement is, do people now feel less angry?” Ormand said. “Do the people, the communities concerned, feel less frightened [after his speech] and are we all less cynical that the public interest is being sacrificed to party management interests? The answer is probably [he is] failing on all three.” Explore more on these topics Politics Rishi Sunak Protest Police Gaza analysis Share Reuse this content It’s not what anyone would want for a school. As well as educating more than 1,300 children, the teachers at Barclay primary school in Leyton, east London
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
TikTok users flood Congress with calls as potential ban advances in House
The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old TikTok users flood Congress with calls as potential ban advances in House This article is more than 1 year old Platform sent alert to US users urging them to protest bill that would make its parent company divest from the app or face a ban Lawmakers’ offices have reportedly been flooded with calls from TikTok users speaking out against a bill that would force the platform’s parent company to divest from the app or face a US ban. The bill, which is backed by more than a dozen representatives, passed unanimously out of the House energy and commerce committee on Thursday with a vote of 50 to 0. TikTok responded by pushing out a notification to many of its estimated 170 million US users, calling on them to contact Congress in protest. The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws Read more This outreach led to a deluge of calls from TikTok users, congressional staffers told the Washington Post – as many as 20 calls per minute, leading some offices to temporarily shut down their phone lines. Taylor Hulsey, a communications director for the Florida congressman Vern Buchanan posted on Twitter/X that staffers were “getting a lot of calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is”. The bill would give ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, 165 days to divest or face being banned from US app stores including the Apple app store and Google Play store. Congress members in support of the bill have spoken out against TikTok’s notification, with backer Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois calling it a “massive propaganda campaign” that “falsely labels” the legislation as a total ban of TikTok. Krishnamoorthi and others say that TikTok can evade a ban if its Chinese parent company divests ownership. Michael Hughes, a spokesperson for TikTok, refuted lawmakers’ characterization of the bill, stating that its “predetermined outcome is a total ban of TikTok in the United States”. “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression,” he said. “This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.” The bill is the latest effort by US lawmakers in a political war against the platform over fears that ByteDance, which is based in China, could collect sensitive user data and censor content that goes against the demands of the Chinese Communist party. TikTok has repeatedly stated that ByteDance is 60% owned by international investors and not influenced by the Chinese government. The effort to ban TikTok intensified throughout 2022 and early 2023, with multiple state bans passing and a congressional hearing with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, but ultimately slowed . This new bill has reignited efforts in earnest. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The bill heads next for a full House vote, which could come as soon as next week, according to the House majority leader, Steve Scalise. However, its chances of passing both the House and Senate remain uncertain. The Biden administration expressed its support of the bill, with a White House national security council spokesperson calling it “an important and welcome step” adding that the Biden administration would work with Congress “to further strengthen this legislation and put it on the strongest possible legal footing”. Explore more on these topics TikTok House of Representatives Biden administration US politics news Share Reuse this content The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old TikTok users flood Congress with calls as potential ban advances in House This article is more than 1 year old Platform sent alert to US users urging them to protest bill that would make its parent company divest from the app or face a ban Lawmakers’ offices have reportedly been flooded with calls from TikTok users speaking out against a bill that would force the platform’s parent company to divest from the app or face a US ban. The bill, which is backed by more than a dozen representatives, passed unanimously out of the House energy and commerce committee on Thursday with a vote of 50 to 0. TikTok responded by pushing out a notification to many of its estimated 170 million US users, calling on them to contact Congress in protest. The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws Read more This outreach led to a deluge of calls from TikTok users, congressional staffers told the Washington Post – as many as 20 calls per minute, leading some offices to temporarily shut down their phone lines. Taylor Hulsey, a communications director for the Florida congressman Vern Buchanan posted on Twitter/X that staffers were “getting a lot of calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is”. The bill would give ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, 165 days to divest or face being banned from US app stores including the Apple app store and Google Play store. Congress members in support of the bill have spoken out against TikTok’s notification, with backer Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois calling it a “massive propaganda campaign” that “falsely labels” the legislation as a total ban of TikTok. Krishnamoorthi and others say that TikTok can evade a ban if its Chinese parent company divests ownership. Michael Hughes, a spokesperson for TikTok, refuted lawmakers’ characterization of the bill, stating that its “predetermined outcome is a total ban of TikTok in the United States”. “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression,” he said. “This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.” The bill is the latest effort by US lawmakers in a political war against the platform over fears that ByteDance, which is based in China, could collect sensitive user data and censor content that goes against the demands of the Chinese Communist party. TikTok has repeatedly stated that ByteDance is 60% owned by international investors and not influenced by the Chinese government. The effort to ban TikTok intensified throughout 2022 and early 2023, with multiple state bans passing and a congressional hearing with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, but ultimately slowed . This new bill has reignited efforts in earnest. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The bill heads next for a full House vote, which could come as soon as next week, according to the House majority leader, Steve Scalise. However, its chances of passing both the House and Senate remain uncertain. The Biden administration expressed its support of the bill, with a White House national security council spokesperson calling it “an important and welcome step” adding that the Biden administration would work with Congress “to further strengthen this legislation and put it on the strongest possible legal footing”. Explore more on these topics TikTok House of Representatives Biden administration US politics news Share Reuse this content The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old TikTok users flood Congress with calls as potential ban advances in House This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old TikTok users flood Congress with calls as potential ban advances in House This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old TikTok users flood Congress with calls as potential ban advances in House This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Platform sent alert to US users urging them to protest bill that would make its parent company divest from the app or face a ban Platform sent alert to US users urging them to protest bill that would make its parent company divest from the app or face a ban Platform sent alert to US users urging them to protest bill that would make its parent company divest from the app or face a ban Lawmakers’ offices have reportedly been flooded with calls from TikTok users speaking out against a bill that would force the platform’s parent company to divest from the app or face a US ban. The bill, which is backed by more than a dozen representatives, passed unanimously out of the House energy and commerce committee on Thursday with a vote of 50 to 0. TikTok responded by pushing out a notification to many of its estimated 170 million US users, calling on them to contact Congress in protest. The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws Read more This outreach led to a deluge of calls from TikTok users, congressional staffers told the Washington Post – as many as 20 calls per minute, leading some offices to temporarily shut down their phone lines. Taylor Hulsey, a communications director for the Florida congressman Vern Buchanan posted on Twitter/X that staffers were “getting a lot of calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is”. The bill would give ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, 165 days to divest or face being banned from US app stores including the Apple app store and Google Play store. Congress members in support of the bill have spoken out against TikTok’s notification, with backer Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois calling it a “massive propaganda campaign” that “falsely labels” the legislation as a total ban of TikTok. Krishnamoorthi and others say that TikTok can evade a ban if its Chinese parent company divests ownership. Michael Hughes, a spokesperson for TikTok, refuted lawmakers’ characterization of the bill, stating that its “predetermined outcome is a total ban of TikTok in the United States”. “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression,” he said. “This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.” The bill is the latest effort by US lawmakers in a political war against the platform over fears that ByteDance, which is based in China, could collect sensitive user data and censor content that goes against the demands of the Chinese Communist party. TikTok has repeatedly stated that ByteDance is 60% owned by international investors and not influenced by the Chinese government. The effort to ban TikTok intensified throughout 2022 and early 2023, with multiple state bans passing and a congressional hearing with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, but ultimately slowed . This new bill has reignited efforts in earnest. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The bill heads next for a full House vote, which could come as soon as next week, according to the House majority leader, Steve Scalise. However, its chances of passing both the House and Senate remain uncertain. The Biden administration expressed its support of the bill, with a White House national security council spokesperson calling it “an important and welcome step” adding that the Biden administration would work with Congress “to further strengthen this legislation and put it on the strongest possible legal footing”. Explore more on these topics TikTok House of Representatives Biden administration US politics news Share Reuse this content Lawmakers’ offices have reportedly been flooded with calls from TikTok users speaking out against a bill that would force the platform’s parent company to divest from the app or face a US ban. The bill, which is backed by more than a dozen representatives, passed unanimously out of the House energy and commerce committee on Thursday with a vote of 50 to 0. TikTok responded by pushing out a notification to many of its estimated 170 million US users, calling on them to contact Congress in protest. The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws Read more This outreach led to a deluge of calls from TikTok users, congressional staffers told the Washington Post – as many as 20 calls per minute, leading some offices to temporarily shut down their phone lines. Taylor Hulsey, a communications director for the Florida congressman Vern Buchanan posted on Twitter/X that staffers were “getting a lot of calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is”. The bill would give ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, 165 days to divest or face being banned from US app stores including the Apple app store and Google Play store. Congress members in support of the bill have spoken out against TikTok’s notification, with backer Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois calling it a “massive propaganda campaign” that “falsely labels” the legislation as a total ban of TikTok. Krishnamoorthi and others say that TikTok can evade a ban if its Chinese parent company divests ownership. Michael Hughes, a spokesperson for TikTok, refuted lawmakers’ characterization of the bill, stating that its “predetermined outcome is a total ban of TikTok in the United States”. “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression,” he said. “This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.” The bill is the latest effort by US lawmakers in a political war against the platform over fears that ByteDance, which is based in China, could collect sensitive user data and censor content that goes against the demands of the Chinese Communist party. TikTok has repeatedly stated that ByteDance is 60% owned by international investors and not influenced by the Chinese government. The effort to ban TikTok intensified throughout 2022 and early 2023, with multiple state bans passing and a congressional hearing with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, but ultimately slowed . This new bill has reignited efforts in earnest. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The bill heads next for a full House vote, which could come as soon as next week, according to the House majority leader, Steve Scalise. However, its chances of passing both the House and Senate remain uncertain. The Biden administration expressed its support of the bill, with a White House national security council spokesperson calling it “an important and welcome step” adding that the Biden administration would work with Congress “to further strengthen this legislation and put it on the strongest possible legal footing”. Explore more on these topics TikTok House of Representatives Biden administration US politics news Share Reuse this content Lawmakers’ offices have reportedly been flooded with calls from TikTok users speaking out against a bill that would force the platform’s parent company to divest from the app or face a US ban. The bill, which is backed by more than a dozen representatives, passed unanimously out of the House energy and commerce committee on Thursday with a vote of 50 to 0. TikTok responded by pushing out a notification to many of its estimated 170 million US users, calling on them to contact Congress in protest. The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws Read more This outreach led to a deluge of calls from TikTok users, congressional staffers told the Washington Post – as many as 20 calls per minute, leading some offices to temporarily shut down their phone lines. Taylor Hulsey, a communications director for the Florida congressman Vern Buchanan posted on Twitter/X that staffers were “getting a lot of calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is”. The bill would give ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, 165 days to divest or face being banned from US app stores including the Apple app store and Google Play store. Congress members in support of the bill have spoken out against TikTok’s notification, with backer Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois calling it a “massive propaganda campaign” that “falsely labels” the legislation as a total ban of TikTok. Krishnamoorthi and others say that TikTok can evade a ban if its Chinese parent company divests ownership. Michael Hughes, a spokesperson for TikTok, refuted lawmakers’ characterization of the bill, stating that its “predetermined outcome is a total ban of TikTok in the United States”. “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression,” he said. “This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.” The bill is the latest effort by US lawmakers in a political war against the platform over fears that ByteDance, which is based in China, could collect sensitive user data and censor content that goes against the demands of the Chinese Communist party. TikTok has repeatedly stated that ByteDance is 60% owned by international investors and not influenced by the Chinese government. The effort to ban TikTok intensified throughout 2022 and early 2023, with multiple state bans passing and a congressional hearing with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, but ultimately slowed . This new bill has reignited efforts in earnest. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The bill heads next for a full House vote, which could come as soon as next week, according to the House majority leader, Steve Scalise. However, its chances of passing both the House and Senate remain uncertain. The Biden administration expressed its support of the bill, with a White House national security council spokesperson calling it “an important and welcome step” adding that the Biden administration would work with Congress “to further strengthen this legislation and put it on the strongest possible legal footing”. Lawmakers’ offices have reportedly been flooded with calls from TikTok users speaking out against a bill that would force the platform’s parent company to divest from the app or face a US ban. The bill, which is backed by more than a dozen representatives, passed unanimously out of the House energy and commerce committee on Thursday with a vote of 50 to 0. TikTok responded by pushing out a notification to many of its estimated 170 million US users, calling on them to contact Congress in protest. The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws Read more This outreach led to a deluge of calls from TikTok users, congressional staffers told the Washington Post – as many as 20 calls per minute, leading some offices to temporarily shut down their phone lines. Taylor Hulsey, a communications director for the Florida congressman Vern Buchanan posted on Twitter/X that staffers were “getting a lot of calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is”. The bill would give ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, 165 days to divest or face being banned from US app stores including the Apple app store and Google Play store. Congress members in support of the bill have spoken out against TikTok’s notification, with backer Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois calling it a “massive propaganda campaign” that “falsely labels” the legislation as a total ban of TikTok. Krishnamoorthi and others say that TikTok can evade a ban if its Chinese parent company divests ownership. Michael Hughes, a spokesperson for TikTok, refuted lawmakers’ characterization of the bill, stating that its “predetermined outcome is a total ban of TikTok in the United States”. “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression,” he said. “This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.” The bill is the latest effort by US lawmakers in a political war against the platform over fears that ByteDance, which is based in China, could collect sensitive user data and censor content that goes against the demands of the Chinese Communist party. TikTok has repeatedly stated that ByteDance is 60% owned by international investors and not influenced by the Chinese government. The effort to ban TikTok intensified throughout 2022 and early 2023, with multiple state bans passing and a congressional hearing with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, but ultimately slowed . This new bill has reignited efforts in earnest. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion The bill heads next for a full House vote, which could come as soon as next week, according to the House majority leader, Steve Scalise. However, its chances of passing both the House and Senate remain uncertain. The Biden administration expressed its support of the bill, with a White House national security council spokesperson calling it “an important and welcome step” adding that the Biden administration would work with Congress “to further strengthen this legislation and put it on the strongest possible legal footing”. Lawmakers’ offices have reportedly been flooded with calls from TikTok users speaking out against a bill that would force the platform’s parent company to divest from the app or face a US ban. The bill, which is backed by more than a dozen representatives, passed unanimously out of the House energy and commerce committee on Thursday with a vote of 50 to 0. TikTok responded by pushing out a notification to many of its estimated 170 million US users, calling on them to contact Congress in protest. The notification included a mechanism that allows people to search for their representative’s number by inputting their zip code. US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws Read more US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws Read more US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws Read more US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws US supreme court appears skeptical of social media content moderation laws This outreach led to a deluge of calls from TikTok users, congressional staffers told the Washington Post – as many as 20 calls per minute, leading some offices to temporarily shut down their phone lines. Taylor Hulsey, a communications director for the Florida congressman Vern Buchanan posted on Twitter/X that staffers were “getting a lot of calls from high schoolers asking what a Congressman is”. The bill would give ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, 165 days to divest or face being banned from US app stores including the Apple app store and Google Play store. Congress members in support of the bill have spoken out against TikTok’s notification, with backer Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois calling it a “massive propaganda campaign” that “falsely labels” the legislation as a total ban of TikTok. Krishnamoorthi and others say that TikTok can evade a ban if its Chinese parent company divests ownership. Michael Hughes, a spokesperson for TikTok, refuted lawmakers’ characterization of the bill, stating that its “predetermined outcome is a total ban of TikTok in the United States”. “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression,” he said. “This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.” The bill is the latest effort by US lawmakers in a political war against the platform over fears that ByteDance, which is based in China, could collect sensitive user data and censor content that goes against the demands of the Chinese Communist party. TikTok has repeatedly stated that ByteDance is 60% owned by international investors and not influenced by the Chinese government. The effort to ban TikTok intensified throughout 2022 and early 2023, with multiple state bans passing and a congressional hearing with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, but ultimately slowed . This new bill has reignited efforts in earnest. The bill heads next for a full House vote, which could come as soon as next week, according to the House majority leader, Steve Scalise. However, its chances of passing both the House and Senate remain uncertain. The Biden administration expressed its support of the bill, with a White House national security council spokesperson calling it “an important and welcome step” adding that the Biden administration would work with Congress “to further strengthen this legislation and put it on the strongest possible legal footing”. Explore more on these topics TikTok House of Representatives Biden administration US politics news Share Reuse this content TikTok House of Representatives Biden administration US politics news |
Oil industry has sought to block state backing for green tech since 1960s
Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty View image in fullscreen Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty This article is more than 1 year old Oil industry has sought to block state backing for green tech since 1960s This article is more than 1 year old Research shows industry lobbying against support for solar panels and electric cars while enjoying subsidies itself The oil industry has fought against government support for clean technologies for more than half a century, the Guardian can reveal, even as vast subsidies have propped up its polluting business model. It lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies such as solar panels, electric cars and heat pumps as far back as the 1960s, analysis shows. Trade associations in the US and Europe stymied green innovations under the guise of supporting a “technology neutral” approach to avoiding the damage done by burning their fuels. The same incumbents were happy to lobby for government support when they were getting started, and had continued to benefit from it since, said Dario Kenner, a visiting research fellow at the University of Sussex who trawled through decades of public statements from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and FuelsEurope. “It’s obviously hypocritical to call for technological neutrality when you are the dominant technology,” he said. Kenner documented dozens of examples of the oil industry pressuring governments to hold back support for renewable energy, restrict funding for the development of clean technologies and weaken environmental rules that favoured their uptake. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Activists say their position is “dishonest” because the oil industry benefits from tax credits and other financial help from governments, and pays for only a fraction of the damage its fuels do to people and the planet. In 2022, the total subsidies for fossil fuels – including costs to society – came to $760bn (£592bn) in the US and $310bn (£264bn) in the EU, according to the International Monetary Fund. The revelations were “outrageous but frankly unsurprising”, said Shira Stanton from the campaign group Beyond Fossil Fuels, who was not involved in the analysis. “It has been proven that the fossil fuel industry caused the climate crisis and deliberately lied about it as they hid the science,” she said. “So finding out that they knew renewable energy was such a threat to their industry that they had to lobby policymakers to rig the market against cleaner and cheaper technology to protect profits is just par for the course.” Some interventions may have slowed the growth of technologies that scientists say are key to stopping the planet from heating. In 1975, after a global oil crisis, the API opposed an energy saving bill that included refundable income tax credits for heat pumps in homes. “The United States has a large resource base of conventional energy such as oil, gas and coal,” it said. “Expeditious development of these supplies can make a significant contribution not only to improving US energy independence, but to create a healthy economy.” Some of the industry’s early efforts to hold back competition later helped it argue that society could not do without it. In 1967, the API protested against a bill to promote the development of electric cars with the argument that governments should “stimulate all efforts by industry to eliminate automotive pollution, rather than dedicate federal funds to the promotion of any single possible solution”. But half a century later, in 2005, its lobbyists fought a bill to support electric cars with the argument that they were not developed enough. “The United States, and the world, cannot afford to leave the age of oil before realistic alternatives are fully in place,” said Red Cavaney, the then president of the API. “It is important to remember that man left the stone age not because he ran out of stones – and we will not leave the age of oil because we ran out of oil.” View image in fullscreen An electric car charging point in London. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Photograph: Zeynep Demir Aslim/Alamy FuelsEurope, which has also fought support for electric vehicles for more than a decade, pushed to weaken EU fuel efficiency standards in 2017 so they would allow combustion engine cars burning alternative fuels. Critics say the low-carbon fuels with which it wants to power cars are expensive, inefficient and in such short supply that they would be better used in planes and ships, which are harder to run on electricity. The oil industry had moved from denying climate change to derailing climate action, said Anna Krajinska, a vehicles analyst at the campaign group Transport and Environment, which was not involved in the analysis. “The push for tech neutrality – particularly ‘carbon neutral’ fuels for road transport – is a disingenuous attempt to keep combustion engines burning fossil fuels,” she said. Some of the world’s biggest oil companies have invested in clean energy projects as they have come under increasing pressure from activists, investors and governments. Armed with big wallets and skilled engineers, they have argued they can lead the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. But a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in November found that oil and gas companies accounted for just 1% of clean energy investments. It described the sector as a “marginal force at best” in the transition. Kenner said it was “ludicrous” to debate an individual oil company’s transition plans when the industry had spent so long fighting clean alternatives that threaten its market share. “As part of trade associations and lobby groups, they have been deliberately trying to undermine the same technologies that people want them to invest in,” he said. The IEA report found that oil and gas producers would have to spend 20 times more of the capital on clean energy – rising from 2.5% in 2022 to 50% in 2030 – to line up with the Paris agreement goal of keeping the planet from heating 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Christina Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat and architect of the agreement, told the Guardian before the Cop28 climate summit in November that she used to believe the industry needed a seat at the table but had lost hope after seeing it use windfall profits since the war in Ukraine to enrich shareholders – instead of reinvesting them in clean energy. The API and FuelsEurope said they were working to reduce emissions. The API said: “America’s natural gas and oil industry is working to address the risks of climate change and build a lower-carbon future, while simultaneously meeting the world’s growing energy needs. Our members continue to make significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions across their operations, while also leading in the development of low-carbon solutions like carbon capture and storage and hydrogen that are critical to meeting the world’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.” FuelsEurope said: “FuelsEurope can state that our industry is transforming, and we have developed a comprehensive pathway of how we, together with our partners, can contribute to meeting the 2050 climate neutrality challenge. By 2050, at the latest, every litre of liquid fuel for transport could be net climate neutral, enabling so, together with all existing and proven sustainable alternative technologies, the decarbonisation of aviation, maritime and road transport, and the refinery products supplying the industrial value chain could also be net zero CO 2 .” Kenner compared the industry’s lobbying to gas lighting companies who fought the arrival of electric street lights, and canal companies who protested against new railways. By fighting off support for emerging competitors, the industries slowed the transition to new technologies. “We know from the history of technological change that it’s often the companies with the new technologies that push it forward – it’s not usually the incumbents,” said Kenner. “Blockbuster video was not going to get to Netflix online streaming.” Explore more on these topics Fossil fuels Energy Renewable energy Lobbying Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars Solar power Greenhouse gas emissions news Share Reuse this content Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty View image in fullscreen Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty This article is more than 1 year old Oil industry has sought to block state backing for green tech since 1960s This article is more than 1 year old Research shows industry lobbying against support for solar panels and electric cars while enjoying subsidies itself The oil industry has fought against government support for clean technologies for more than half a century, the Guardian can reveal, even as vast subsidies have propped up its polluting business model. It lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies such as solar panels, electric cars and heat pumps as far back as the 1960s, analysis shows. Trade associations in the US and Europe stymied green innovations under the guise of supporting a “technology neutral” approach to avoiding the damage done by burning their fuels. The same incumbents were happy to lobby for government support when they were getting started, and had continued to benefit from it since, said Dario Kenner, a visiting research fellow at the University of Sussex who trawled through decades of public statements from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and FuelsEurope. “It’s obviously hypocritical to call for technological neutrality when you are the dominant technology,” he said. Kenner documented dozens of examples of the oil industry pressuring governments to hold back support for renewable energy, restrict funding for the development of clean technologies and weaken environmental rules that favoured their uptake. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Activists say their position is “dishonest” because the oil industry benefits from tax credits and other financial help from governments, and pays for only a fraction of the damage its fuels do to people and the planet. In 2022, the total subsidies for fossil fuels – including costs to society – came to $760bn (£592bn) in the US and $310bn (£264bn) in the EU, according to the International Monetary Fund. The revelations were “outrageous but frankly unsurprising”, said Shira Stanton from the campaign group Beyond Fossil Fuels, who was not involved in the analysis. “It has been proven that the fossil fuel industry caused the climate crisis and deliberately lied about it as they hid the science,” she said. “So finding out that they knew renewable energy was such a threat to their industry that they had to lobby policymakers to rig the market against cleaner and cheaper technology to protect profits is just par for the course.” Some interventions may have slowed the growth of technologies that scientists say are key to stopping the planet from heating. In 1975, after a global oil crisis, the API opposed an energy saving bill that included refundable income tax credits for heat pumps in homes. “The United States has a large resource base of conventional energy such as oil, gas and coal,” it said. “Expeditious development of these supplies can make a significant contribution not only to improving US energy independence, but to create a healthy economy.” Some of the industry’s early efforts to hold back competition later helped it argue that society could not do without it. In 1967, the API protested against a bill to promote the development of electric cars with the argument that governments should “stimulate all efforts by industry to eliminate automotive pollution, rather than dedicate federal funds to the promotion of any single possible solution”. But half a century later, in 2005, its lobbyists fought a bill to support electric cars with the argument that they were not developed enough. “The United States, and the world, cannot afford to leave the age of oil before realistic alternatives are fully in place,” said Red Cavaney, the then president of the API. “It is important to remember that man left the stone age not because he ran out of stones – and we will not leave the age of oil because we ran out of oil.” View image in fullscreen An electric car charging point in London. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Photograph: Zeynep Demir Aslim/Alamy FuelsEurope, which has also fought support for electric vehicles for more than a decade, pushed to weaken EU fuel efficiency standards in 2017 so they would allow combustion engine cars burning alternative fuels. Critics say the low-carbon fuels with which it wants to power cars are expensive, inefficient and in such short supply that they would be better used in planes and ships, which are harder to run on electricity. The oil industry had moved from denying climate change to derailing climate action, said Anna Krajinska, a vehicles analyst at the campaign group Transport and Environment, which was not involved in the analysis. “The push for tech neutrality – particularly ‘carbon neutral’ fuels for road transport – is a disingenuous attempt to keep combustion engines burning fossil fuels,” she said. Some of the world’s biggest oil companies have invested in clean energy projects as they have come under increasing pressure from activists, investors and governments. Armed with big wallets and skilled engineers, they have argued they can lead the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. But a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in November found that oil and gas companies accounted for just 1% of clean energy investments. It described the sector as a “marginal force at best” in the transition. Kenner said it was “ludicrous” to debate an individual oil company’s transition plans when the industry had spent so long fighting clean alternatives that threaten its market share. “As part of trade associations and lobby groups, they have been deliberately trying to undermine the same technologies that people want them to invest in,” he said. The IEA report found that oil and gas producers would have to spend 20 times more of the capital on clean energy – rising from 2.5% in 2022 to 50% in 2030 – to line up with the Paris agreement goal of keeping the planet from heating 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Christina Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat and architect of the agreement, told the Guardian before the Cop28 climate summit in November that she used to believe the industry needed a seat at the table but had lost hope after seeing it use windfall profits since the war in Ukraine to enrich shareholders – instead of reinvesting them in clean energy. The API and FuelsEurope said they were working to reduce emissions. The API said: “America’s natural gas and oil industry is working to address the risks of climate change and build a lower-carbon future, while simultaneously meeting the world’s growing energy needs. Our members continue to make significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions across their operations, while also leading in the development of low-carbon solutions like carbon capture and storage and hydrogen that are critical to meeting the world’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.” FuelsEurope said: “FuelsEurope can state that our industry is transforming, and we have developed a comprehensive pathway of how we, together with our partners, can contribute to meeting the 2050 climate neutrality challenge. By 2050, at the latest, every litre of liquid fuel for transport could be net climate neutral, enabling so, together with all existing and proven sustainable alternative technologies, the decarbonisation of aviation, maritime and road transport, and the refinery products supplying the industrial value chain could also be net zero CO 2 .” Kenner compared the industry’s lobbying to gas lighting companies who fought the arrival of electric street lights, and canal companies who protested against new railways. By fighting off support for emerging competitors, the industries slowed the transition to new technologies. “We know from the history of technological change that it’s often the companies with the new technologies that push it forward – it’s not usually the incumbents,” said Kenner. “Blockbuster video was not going to get to Netflix online streaming.” Explore more on these topics Fossil fuels Energy Renewable energy Lobbying Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars Solar power Greenhouse gas emissions news Share Reuse this content Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty View image in fullscreen Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty View image in fullscreen Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty View image in fullscreen Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty View image in fullscreen Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Solar panels being installed at King's College chapel in Cambridge. The oil industry lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies. Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty This article is more than 1 year old Oil industry has sought to block state backing for green tech since 1960s This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Oil industry has sought to block state backing for green tech since 1960s This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Oil industry has sought to block state backing for green tech since 1960s This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Research shows industry lobbying against support for solar panels and electric cars while enjoying subsidies itself Research shows industry lobbying against support for solar panels and electric cars while enjoying subsidies itself Research shows industry lobbying against support for solar panels and electric cars while enjoying subsidies itself The oil industry has fought against government support for clean technologies for more than half a century, the Guardian can reveal, even as vast subsidies have propped up its polluting business model. It lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies such as solar panels, electric cars and heat pumps as far back as the 1960s, analysis shows. Trade associations in the US and Europe stymied green innovations under the guise of supporting a “technology neutral” approach to avoiding the damage done by burning their fuels. The same incumbents were happy to lobby for government support when they were getting started, and had continued to benefit from it since, said Dario Kenner, a visiting research fellow at the University of Sussex who trawled through decades of public statements from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and FuelsEurope. “It’s obviously hypocritical to call for technological neutrality when you are the dominant technology,” he said. Kenner documented dozens of examples of the oil industry pressuring governments to hold back support for renewable energy, restrict funding for the development of clean technologies and weaken environmental rules that favoured their uptake. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Activists say their position is “dishonest” because the oil industry benefits from tax credits and other financial help from governments, and pays for only a fraction of the damage its fuels do to people and the planet. In 2022, the total subsidies for fossil fuels – including costs to society – came to $760bn (£592bn) in the US and $310bn (£264bn) in the EU, according to the International Monetary Fund. The revelations were “outrageous but frankly unsurprising”, said Shira Stanton from the campaign group Beyond Fossil Fuels, who was not involved in the analysis. “It has been proven that the fossil fuel industry caused the climate crisis and deliberately lied about it as they hid the science,” she said. “So finding out that they knew renewable energy was such a threat to their industry that they had to lobby policymakers to rig the market against cleaner and cheaper technology to protect profits is just par for the course.” Some interventions may have slowed the growth of technologies that scientists say are key to stopping the planet from heating. In 1975, after a global oil crisis, the API opposed an energy saving bill that included refundable income tax credits for heat pumps in homes. “The United States has a large resource base of conventional energy such as oil, gas and coal,” it said. “Expeditious development of these supplies can make a significant contribution not only to improving US energy independence, but to create a healthy economy.” Some of the industry’s early efforts to hold back competition later helped it argue that society could not do without it. In 1967, the API protested against a bill to promote the development of electric cars with the argument that governments should “stimulate all efforts by industry to eliminate automotive pollution, rather than dedicate federal funds to the promotion of any single possible solution”. But half a century later, in 2005, its lobbyists fought a bill to support electric cars with the argument that they were not developed enough. “The United States, and the world, cannot afford to leave the age of oil before realistic alternatives are fully in place,” said Red Cavaney, the then president of the API. “It is important to remember that man left the stone age not because he ran out of stones – and we will not leave the age of oil because we ran out of oil.” View image in fullscreen An electric car charging point in London. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Photograph: Zeynep Demir Aslim/Alamy FuelsEurope, which has also fought support for electric vehicles for more than a decade, pushed to weaken EU fuel efficiency standards in 2017 so they would allow combustion engine cars burning alternative fuels. Critics say the low-carbon fuels with which it wants to power cars are expensive, inefficient and in such short supply that they would be better used in planes and ships, which are harder to run on electricity. The oil industry had moved from denying climate change to derailing climate action, said Anna Krajinska, a vehicles analyst at the campaign group Transport and Environment, which was not involved in the analysis. “The push for tech neutrality – particularly ‘carbon neutral’ fuels for road transport – is a disingenuous attempt to keep combustion engines burning fossil fuels,” she said. Some of the world’s biggest oil companies have invested in clean energy projects as they have come under increasing pressure from activists, investors and governments. Armed with big wallets and skilled engineers, they have argued they can lead the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. But a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in November found that oil and gas companies accounted for just 1% of clean energy investments. It described the sector as a “marginal force at best” in the transition. Kenner said it was “ludicrous” to debate an individual oil company’s transition plans when the industry had spent so long fighting clean alternatives that threaten its market share. “As part of trade associations and lobby groups, they have been deliberately trying to undermine the same technologies that people want them to invest in,” he said. The IEA report found that oil and gas producers would have to spend 20 times more of the capital on clean energy – rising from 2.5% in 2022 to 50% in 2030 – to line up with the Paris agreement goal of keeping the planet from heating 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Christina Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat and architect of the agreement, told the Guardian before the Cop28 climate summit in November that she used to believe the industry needed a seat at the table but had lost hope after seeing it use windfall profits since the war in Ukraine to enrich shareholders – instead of reinvesting them in clean energy. The API and FuelsEurope said they were working to reduce emissions. The API said: “America’s natural gas and oil industry is working to address the risks of climate change and build a lower-carbon future, while simultaneously meeting the world’s growing energy needs. Our members continue to make significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions across their operations, while also leading in the development of low-carbon solutions like carbon capture and storage and hydrogen that are critical to meeting the world’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.” FuelsEurope said: “FuelsEurope can state that our industry is transforming, and we have developed a comprehensive pathway of how we, together with our partners, can contribute to meeting the 2050 climate neutrality challenge. By 2050, at the latest, every litre of liquid fuel for transport could be net climate neutral, enabling so, together with all existing and proven sustainable alternative technologies, the decarbonisation of aviation, maritime and road transport, and the refinery products supplying the industrial value chain could also be net zero CO 2 .” Kenner compared the industry’s lobbying to gas lighting companies who fought the arrival of electric street lights, and canal companies who protested against new railways. By fighting off support for emerging competitors, the industries slowed the transition to new technologies. “We know from the history of technological change that it’s often the companies with the new technologies that push it forward – it’s not usually the incumbents,” said Kenner. “Blockbuster video was not going to get to Netflix online streaming.” Explore more on these topics Fossil fuels Energy Renewable energy Lobbying Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars Solar power Greenhouse gas emissions news Share Reuse this content The oil industry has fought against government support for clean technologies for more than half a century, the Guardian can reveal, even as vast subsidies have propped up its polluting business model. It lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies such as solar panels, electric cars and heat pumps as far back as the 1960s, analysis shows. Trade associations in the US and Europe stymied green innovations under the guise of supporting a “technology neutral” approach to avoiding the damage done by burning their fuels. The same incumbents were happy to lobby for government support when they were getting started, and had continued to benefit from it since, said Dario Kenner, a visiting research fellow at the University of Sussex who trawled through decades of public statements from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and FuelsEurope. “It’s obviously hypocritical to call for technological neutrality when you are the dominant technology,” he said. Kenner documented dozens of examples of the oil industry pressuring governments to hold back support for renewable energy, restrict funding for the development of clean technologies and weaken environmental rules that favoured their uptake. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Activists say their position is “dishonest” because the oil industry benefits from tax credits and other financial help from governments, and pays for only a fraction of the damage its fuels do to people and the planet. In 2022, the total subsidies for fossil fuels – including costs to society – came to $760bn (£592bn) in the US and $310bn (£264bn) in the EU, according to the International Monetary Fund. The revelations were “outrageous but frankly unsurprising”, said Shira Stanton from the campaign group Beyond Fossil Fuels, who was not involved in the analysis. “It has been proven that the fossil fuel industry caused the climate crisis and deliberately lied about it as they hid the science,” she said. “So finding out that they knew renewable energy was such a threat to their industry that they had to lobby policymakers to rig the market against cleaner and cheaper technology to protect profits is just par for the course.” Some interventions may have slowed the growth of technologies that scientists say are key to stopping the planet from heating. In 1975, after a global oil crisis, the API opposed an energy saving bill that included refundable income tax credits for heat pumps in homes. “The United States has a large resource base of conventional energy such as oil, gas and coal,” it said. “Expeditious development of these supplies can make a significant contribution not only to improving US energy independence, but to create a healthy economy.” Some of the industry’s early efforts to hold back competition later helped it argue that society could not do without it. In 1967, the API protested against a bill to promote the development of electric cars with the argument that governments should “stimulate all efforts by industry to eliminate automotive pollution, rather than dedicate federal funds to the promotion of any single possible solution”. But half a century later, in 2005, its lobbyists fought a bill to support electric cars with the argument that they were not developed enough. “The United States, and the world, cannot afford to leave the age of oil before realistic alternatives are fully in place,” said Red Cavaney, the then president of the API. “It is important to remember that man left the stone age not because he ran out of stones – and we will not leave the age of oil because we ran out of oil.” View image in fullscreen An electric car charging point in London. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Photograph: Zeynep Demir Aslim/Alamy FuelsEurope, which has also fought support for electric vehicles for more than a decade, pushed to weaken EU fuel efficiency standards in 2017 so they would allow combustion engine cars burning alternative fuels. Critics say the low-carbon fuels with which it wants to power cars are expensive, inefficient and in such short supply that they would be better used in planes and ships, which are harder to run on electricity. The oil industry had moved from denying climate change to derailing climate action, said Anna Krajinska, a vehicles analyst at the campaign group Transport and Environment, which was not involved in the analysis. “The push for tech neutrality – particularly ‘carbon neutral’ fuels for road transport – is a disingenuous attempt to keep combustion engines burning fossil fuels,” she said. Some of the world’s biggest oil companies have invested in clean energy projects as they have come under increasing pressure from activists, investors and governments. Armed with big wallets and skilled engineers, they have argued they can lead the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. But a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in November found that oil and gas companies accounted for just 1% of clean energy investments. It described the sector as a “marginal force at best” in the transition. Kenner said it was “ludicrous” to debate an individual oil company’s transition plans when the industry had spent so long fighting clean alternatives that threaten its market share. “As part of trade associations and lobby groups, they have been deliberately trying to undermine the same technologies that people want them to invest in,” he said. The IEA report found that oil and gas producers would have to spend 20 times more of the capital on clean energy – rising from 2.5% in 2022 to 50% in 2030 – to line up with the Paris agreement goal of keeping the planet from heating 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Christina Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat and architect of the agreement, told the Guardian before the Cop28 climate summit in November that she used to believe the industry needed a seat at the table but had lost hope after seeing it use windfall profits since the war in Ukraine to enrich shareholders – instead of reinvesting them in clean energy. The API and FuelsEurope said they were working to reduce emissions. The API said: “America’s natural gas and oil industry is working to address the risks of climate change and build a lower-carbon future, while simultaneously meeting the world’s growing energy needs. Our members continue to make significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions across their operations, while also leading in the development of low-carbon solutions like carbon capture and storage and hydrogen that are critical to meeting the world’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.” FuelsEurope said: “FuelsEurope can state that our industry is transforming, and we have developed a comprehensive pathway of how we, together with our partners, can contribute to meeting the 2050 climate neutrality challenge. By 2050, at the latest, every litre of liquid fuel for transport could be net climate neutral, enabling so, together with all existing and proven sustainable alternative technologies, the decarbonisation of aviation, maritime and road transport, and the refinery products supplying the industrial value chain could also be net zero CO 2 .” Kenner compared the industry’s lobbying to gas lighting companies who fought the arrival of electric street lights, and canal companies who protested against new railways. By fighting off support for emerging competitors, the industries slowed the transition to new technologies. “We know from the history of technological change that it’s often the companies with the new technologies that push it forward – it’s not usually the incumbents,” said Kenner. “Blockbuster video was not going to get to Netflix online streaming.” Explore more on these topics Fossil fuels Energy Renewable energy Lobbying Electric, hybrid and low-emission cars Solar power Greenhouse gas emissions news Share Reuse this content The oil industry has fought against government support for clean technologies for more than half a century, the Guardian can reveal, even as vast subsidies have propped up its polluting business model. It lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies such as solar panels, electric cars and heat pumps as far back as the 1960s, analysis shows. Trade associations in the US and Europe stymied green innovations under the guise of supporting a “technology neutral” approach to avoiding the damage done by burning their fuels. The same incumbents were happy to lobby for government support when they were getting started, and had continued to benefit from it since, said Dario Kenner, a visiting research fellow at the University of Sussex who trawled through decades of public statements from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and FuelsEurope. “It’s obviously hypocritical to call for technological neutrality when you are the dominant technology,” he said. Kenner documented dozens of examples of the oil industry pressuring governments to hold back support for renewable energy, restrict funding for the development of clean technologies and weaken environmental rules that favoured their uptake. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Activists say their position is “dishonest” because the oil industry benefits from tax credits and other financial help from governments, and pays for only a fraction of the damage its fuels do to people and the planet. In 2022, the total subsidies for fossil fuels – including costs to society – came to $760bn (£592bn) in the US and $310bn (£264bn) in the EU, according to the International Monetary Fund. The revelations were “outrageous but frankly unsurprising”, said Shira Stanton from the campaign group Beyond Fossil Fuels, who was not involved in the analysis. “It has been proven that the fossil fuel industry caused the climate crisis and deliberately lied about it as they hid the science,” she said. “So finding out that they knew renewable energy was such a threat to their industry that they had to lobby policymakers to rig the market against cleaner and cheaper technology to protect profits is just par for the course.” Some interventions may have slowed the growth of technologies that scientists say are key to stopping the planet from heating. In 1975, after a global oil crisis, the API opposed an energy saving bill that included refundable income tax credits for heat pumps in homes. “The United States has a large resource base of conventional energy such as oil, gas and coal,” it said. “Expeditious development of these supplies can make a significant contribution not only to improving US energy independence, but to create a healthy economy.” Some of the industry’s early efforts to hold back competition later helped it argue that society could not do without it. In 1967, the API protested against a bill to promote the development of electric cars with the argument that governments should “stimulate all efforts by industry to eliminate automotive pollution, rather than dedicate federal funds to the promotion of any single possible solution”. But half a century later, in 2005, its lobbyists fought a bill to support electric cars with the argument that they were not developed enough. “The United States, and the world, cannot afford to leave the age of oil before realistic alternatives are fully in place,” said Red Cavaney, the then president of the API. “It is important to remember that man left the stone age not because he ran out of stones – and we will not leave the age of oil because we ran out of oil.” View image in fullscreen An electric car charging point in London. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Photograph: Zeynep Demir Aslim/Alamy FuelsEurope, which has also fought support for electric vehicles for more than a decade, pushed to weaken EU fuel efficiency standards in 2017 so they would allow combustion engine cars burning alternative fuels. Critics say the low-carbon fuels with which it wants to power cars are expensive, inefficient and in such short supply that they would be better used in planes and ships, which are harder to run on electricity. The oil industry had moved from denying climate change to derailing climate action, said Anna Krajinska, a vehicles analyst at the campaign group Transport and Environment, which was not involved in the analysis. “The push for tech neutrality – particularly ‘carbon neutral’ fuels for road transport – is a disingenuous attempt to keep combustion engines burning fossil fuels,” she said. Some of the world’s biggest oil companies have invested in clean energy projects as they have come under increasing pressure from activists, investors and governments. Armed with big wallets and skilled engineers, they have argued they can lead the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. But a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in November found that oil and gas companies accounted for just 1% of clean energy investments. It described the sector as a “marginal force at best” in the transition. Kenner said it was “ludicrous” to debate an individual oil company’s transition plans when the industry had spent so long fighting clean alternatives that threaten its market share. “As part of trade associations and lobby groups, they have been deliberately trying to undermine the same technologies that people want them to invest in,” he said. The IEA report found that oil and gas producers would have to spend 20 times more of the capital on clean energy – rising from 2.5% in 2022 to 50% in 2030 – to line up with the Paris agreement goal of keeping the planet from heating 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Christina Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat and architect of the agreement, told the Guardian before the Cop28 climate summit in November that she used to believe the industry needed a seat at the table but had lost hope after seeing it use windfall profits since the war in Ukraine to enrich shareholders – instead of reinvesting them in clean energy. The API and FuelsEurope said they were working to reduce emissions. The API said: “America’s natural gas and oil industry is working to address the risks of climate change and build a lower-carbon future, while simultaneously meeting the world’s growing energy needs. Our members continue to make significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions across their operations, while also leading in the development of low-carbon solutions like carbon capture and storage and hydrogen that are critical to meeting the world’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.” FuelsEurope said: “FuelsEurope can state that our industry is transforming, and we have developed a comprehensive pathway of how we, together with our partners, can contribute to meeting the 2050 climate neutrality challenge. By 2050, at the latest, every litre of liquid fuel for transport could be net climate neutral, enabling so, together with all existing and proven sustainable alternative technologies, the decarbonisation of aviation, maritime and road transport, and the refinery products supplying the industrial value chain could also be net zero CO 2 .” Kenner compared the industry’s lobbying to gas lighting companies who fought the arrival of electric street lights, and canal companies who protested against new railways. By fighting off support for emerging competitors, the industries slowed the transition to new technologies. “We know from the history of technological change that it’s often the companies with the new technologies that push it forward – it’s not usually the incumbents,” said Kenner. “Blockbuster video was not going to get to Netflix online streaming.” The oil industry has fought against government support for clean technologies for more than half a century, the Guardian can reveal, even as vast subsidies have propped up its polluting business model. It lobbied lawmakers to block support for low-carbon technologies such as solar panels, electric cars and heat pumps as far back as the 1960s, analysis shows. Trade associations in the US and Europe stymied green innovations under the guise of supporting a “technology neutral” approach to avoiding the damage done by burning their fuels. The same incumbents were happy to lobby for government support when they were getting started, and had continued to benefit from it since, said Dario Kenner, a visiting research fellow at the University of Sussex who trawled through decades of public statements from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and FuelsEurope. “It’s obviously hypocritical to call for technological neutrality when you are the dominant technology,” he said. Kenner documented dozens of examples of the oil industry pressuring governments to hold back support for renewable energy, restrict funding for the development of clean technologies and weaken environmental rules that favoured their uptake. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Activists say their position is “dishonest” because the oil industry benefits from tax credits and other financial help from governments, and pays for only a fraction of the damage its fuels do to people and the planet. In 2022, the total subsidies for fossil fuels – including costs to society – came to $760bn (£592bn) in the US and $310bn (£264bn) in the EU, according to the International Monetary Fund. The revelations were “outrageous but frankly unsurprising”, said Shira Stanton from the campaign group Beyond Fossil Fuels, who was not involved in the analysis. “It has been proven that the fossil fuel industry caused the climate crisis and deliberately lied about it as they hid the science,” she said. “So finding out that they knew renewable energy was such a threat to their industry that they had to lobby policymakers to rig the market against cleaner and cheaper technology to protect profits is just par for the course.” Some interventions may have slowed the growth of technologies that scientists say are key to stopping the planet from heating. In 1975, after a global oil crisis, the API opposed an energy saving bill that included refundable income tax credits for heat pumps in homes. “The United States has a large resource base of conventional energy such as oil, gas and coal,” it said. “Expeditious development of these supplies can make a significant contribution not only to improving US energy independence, but to create a healthy economy.” Some of the industry’s early efforts to hold back competition later helped it argue that society could not do without it. In 1967, the API protested against a bill to promote the development of electric cars with the argument that governments should “stimulate all efforts by industry to eliminate automotive pollution, rather than dedicate federal funds to the promotion of any single possible solution”. But half a century later, in 2005, its lobbyists fought a bill to support electric cars with the argument that they were not developed enough. “The United States, and the world, cannot afford to leave the age of oil before realistic alternatives are fully in place,” said Red Cavaney, the then president of the API. “It is important to remember that man left the stone age not because he ran out of stones – and we will not leave the age of oil because we ran out of oil.” View image in fullscreen An electric car charging point in London. Lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic argued that government subsidies for clean technologies distorted free markets. Photograph: Zeynep Demir Aslim/Alamy FuelsEurope, which has also fought support for electric vehicles for more than a decade, pushed to weaken EU fuel efficiency standards in 2017 so they would allow combustion engine cars burning alternative fuels. Critics say the low-carbon fuels with which it wants to power cars are expensive, inefficient and in such short supply that they would be better used in planes and ships, which are harder to run on electricity. The oil industry had moved from denying climate change to derailing climate action, said Anna Krajinska, a vehicles analyst at the campaign group Transport and Environment, which was not involved in the analysis. “The push for tech neutrality – pa
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Apple lets Epic Games put Fortnite and game store back on iPhones in Europe
Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Apple lets Epic Games put Fortnite and game store back on iPhones in Europe This article is more than 1 year old Tech giant takes a step back from years-long feud with game maker after pressure from European regulators Under pressure from European regulators, Apple took a step back in its feud with Epic Games on Friday, clearing the way for Epic to put Fortnite and its own game store on iPhones and iPads in Europe. Earlier this week, Apple had taken steps to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back the popular game, which Apple removed from its App Store in 2020 after Epic broke the iPhone maker’s in-app payment rules in protest. The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple Read more Apple’s decision to open its door to Epic follows the EU’s Thursday deadline for big tech companies to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a set of rules that bans Apple and Google from controlling which apps are distributed on devices with the iOS and Android operating systems. Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry chief, said regulators had warned Apple about the iPhone maker’s move earlier this week to block Epic’s potential return. “I take note with satisfaction that following our contacts Apple decided to backtrack its decision on Epic exclusion. From Day 2, #DMA is already showing very concrete results!” Breton said on Twitter/X. Epic and Apple have been in a legal battle since 2020, when the gaming firm alleged that Apple’s practice of charging up to 30% commissions on in-app payments on its iOS devices violated US antitrust rules. Epic lost its court battle against Apple, and the game maker’s bold gambit to intentionally break Apple’s rules as a protest got it banned from Apple’s devices. Other Apple critics that have not purposely broken Apple’s rules – even ones such as Spotify, which earlier this week prevailed in persuading EU antitrust regulators to impose a €1.84bn ($2bn) fine for anticompetitive actions in the digital music market – have not been removed from Apple’s app store. Developer accounts serve as pawns in larger battle The most recent tangle between Apple and Epic involved Apple’s developer accounts, which are normally a minor but necessary administrative step for developers before selling apps on Apple devices. Apple on Friday reinstated Epic Games’s developer account two days after it had blocked the company from launching its own online marketplace on iPhones and iPads in Europe. The game developer said it will move on with its plans to bring the Epic Games store and the Fortnite game back to iOS in the continent. “This sends a strong signal to developers that the European Commission will act swiftly to enforce the Digital Markets Act and hold gatekeepers accountable,” Epic Games added. Apple earlier this week said it had terminated Epic’s account because the company’s actions made it doubt whether it intended to follow the new rules Apple has set out to comply with the DMA. “Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement and accepted into the Apple Developer Program,” Apple said in a statement. Explore more on these topics Technology Fortnite Apple Games news Share Reuse this content Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Apple lets Epic Games put Fortnite and game store back on iPhones in Europe This article is more than 1 year old Tech giant takes a step back from years-long feud with game maker after pressure from European regulators Under pressure from European regulators, Apple took a step back in its feud with Epic Games on Friday, clearing the way for Epic to put Fortnite and its own game store on iPhones and iPads in Europe. Earlier this week, Apple had taken steps to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back the popular game, which Apple removed from its App Store in 2020 after Epic broke the iPhone maker’s in-app payment rules in protest. The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple Read more Apple’s decision to open its door to Epic follows the EU’s Thursday deadline for big tech companies to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a set of rules that bans Apple and Google from controlling which apps are distributed on devices with the iOS and Android operating systems. Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry chief, said regulators had warned Apple about the iPhone maker’s move earlier this week to block Epic’s potential return. “I take note with satisfaction that following our contacts Apple decided to backtrack its decision on Epic exclusion. From Day 2, #DMA is already showing very concrete results!” Breton said on Twitter/X. Epic and Apple have been in a legal battle since 2020, when the gaming firm alleged that Apple’s practice of charging up to 30% commissions on in-app payments on its iOS devices violated US antitrust rules. Epic lost its court battle against Apple, and the game maker’s bold gambit to intentionally break Apple’s rules as a protest got it banned from Apple’s devices. Other Apple critics that have not purposely broken Apple’s rules – even ones such as Spotify, which earlier this week prevailed in persuading EU antitrust regulators to impose a €1.84bn ($2bn) fine for anticompetitive actions in the digital music market – have not been removed from Apple’s app store. Developer accounts serve as pawns in larger battle The most recent tangle between Apple and Epic involved Apple’s developer accounts, which are normally a minor but necessary administrative step for developers before selling apps on Apple devices. Apple on Friday reinstated Epic Games’s developer account two days after it had blocked the company from launching its own online marketplace on iPhones and iPads in Europe. The game developer said it will move on with its plans to bring the Epic Games store and the Fortnite game back to iOS in the continent. “This sends a strong signal to developers that the European Commission will act swiftly to enforce the Digital Markets Act and hold gatekeepers accountable,” Epic Games added. Apple earlier this week said it had terminated Epic’s account because the company’s actions made it doubt whether it intended to follow the new rules Apple has set out to comply with the DMA. “Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement and accepted into the Apple Developer Program,” Apple said in a statement. Explore more on these topics Technology Fortnite Apple Games news Share Reuse this content Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters View image in fullscreen Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters Apple had taken steps earlier this week to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back Fortnite. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters This article is more than 1 year old Apple lets Epic Games put Fortnite and game store back on iPhones in Europe This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Apple lets Epic Games put Fortnite and game store back on iPhones in Europe This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Apple lets Epic Games put Fortnite and game store back on iPhones in Europe This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tech giant takes a step back from years-long feud with game maker after pressure from European regulators Tech giant takes a step back from years-long feud with game maker after pressure from European regulators Tech giant takes a step back from years-long feud with game maker after pressure from European regulators Under pressure from European regulators, Apple took a step back in its feud with Epic Games on Friday, clearing the way for Epic to put Fortnite and its own game store on iPhones and iPads in Europe. Earlier this week, Apple had taken steps to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back the popular game, which Apple removed from its App Store in 2020 after Epic broke the iPhone maker’s in-app payment rules in protest. The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple Read more Apple’s decision to open its door to Epic follows the EU’s Thursday deadline for big tech companies to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a set of rules that bans Apple and Google from controlling which apps are distributed on devices with the iOS and Android operating systems. Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry chief, said regulators had warned Apple about the iPhone maker’s move earlier this week to block Epic’s potential return. “I take note with satisfaction that following our contacts Apple decided to backtrack its decision on Epic exclusion. From Day 2, #DMA is already showing very concrete results!” Breton said on Twitter/X. Epic and Apple have been in a legal battle since 2020, when the gaming firm alleged that Apple’s practice of charging up to 30% commissions on in-app payments on its iOS devices violated US antitrust rules. Epic lost its court battle against Apple, and the game maker’s bold gambit to intentionally break Apple’s rules as a protest got it banned from Apple’s devices. Other Apple critics that have not purposely broken Apple’s rules – even ones such as Spotify, which earlier this week prevailed in persuading EU antitrust regulators to impose a €1.84bn ($2bn) fine for anticompetitive actions in the digital music market – have not been removed from Apple’s app store. Developer accounts serve as pawns in larger battle The most recent tangle between Apple and Epic involved Apple’s developer accounts, which are normally a minor but necessary administrative step for developers before selling apps on Apple devices. Apple on Friday reinstated Epic Games’s developer account two days after it had blocked the company from launching its own online marketplace on iPhones and iPads in Europe. The game developer said it will move on with its plans to bring the Epic Games store and the Fortnite game back to iOS in the continent. “This sends a strong signal to developers that the European Commission will act swiftly to enforce the Digital Markets Act and hold gatekeepers accountable,” Epic Games added. Apple earlier this week said it had terminated Epic’s account because the company’s actions made it doubt whether it intended to follow the new rules Apple has set out to comply with the DMA. “Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement and accepted into the Apple Developer Program,” Apple said in a statement. Explore more on these topics Technology Fortnite Apple Games news Share Reuse this content Under pressure from European regulators, Apple took a step back in its feud with Epic Games on Friday, clearing the way for Epic to put Fortnite and its own game store on iPhones and iPads in Europe. Earlier this week, Apple had taken steps to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back the popular game, which Apple removed from its App Store in 2020 after Epic broke the iPhone maker’s in-app payment rules in protest. The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple Read more Apple’s decision to open its door to Epic follows the EU’s Thursday deadline for big tech companies to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a set of rules that bans Apple and Google from controlling which apps are distributed on devices with the iOS and Android operating systems. Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry chief, said regulators had warned Apple about the iPhone maker’s move earlier this week to block Epic’s potential return. “I take note with satisfaction that following our contacts Apple decided to backtrack its decision on Epic exclusion. From Day 2, #DMA is already showing very concrete results!” Breton said on Twitter/X. Epic and Apple have been in a legal battle since 2020, when the gaming firm alleged that Apple’s practice of charging up to 30% commissions on in-app payments on its iOS devices violated US antitrust rules. Epic lost its court battle against Apple, and the game maker’s bold gambit to intentionally break Apple’s rules as a protest got it banned from Apple’s devices. Other Apple critics that have not purposely broken Apple’s rules – even ones such as Spotify, which earlier this week prevailed in persuading EU antitrust regulators to impose a €1.84bn ($2bn) fine for anticompetitive actions in the digital music market – have not been removed from Apple’s app store. Developer accounts serve as pawns in larger battle The most recent tangle between Apple and Epic involved Apple’s developer accounts, which are normally a minor but necessary administrative step for developers before selling apps on Apple devices. Apple on Friday reinstated Epic Games’s developer account two days after it had blocked the company from launching its own online marketplace on iPhones and iPads in Europe. The game developer said it will move on with its plans to bring the Epic Games store and the Fortnite game back to iOS in the continent. “This sends a strong signal to developers that the European Commission will act swiftly to enforce the Digital Markets Act and hold gatekeepers accountable,” Epic Games added. Apple earlier this week said it had terminated Epic’s account because the company’s actions made it doubt whether it intended to follow the new rules Apple has set out to comply with the DMA. “Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement and accepted into the Apple Developer Program,” Apple said in a statement. Explore more on these topics Technology Fortnite Apple Games news Share Reuse this content Under pressure from European regulators, Apple took a step back in its feud with Epic Games on Friday, clearing the way for Epic to put Fortnite and its own game store on iPhones and iPads in Europe. Earlier this week, Apple had taken steps to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back the popular game, which Apple removed from its App Store in 2020 after Epic broke the iPhone maker’s in-app payment rules in protest. The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple Read more Apple’s decision to open its door to Epic follows the EU’s Thursday deadline for big tech companies to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a set of rules that bans Apple and Google from controlling which apps are distributed on devices with the iOS and Android operating systems. Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry chief, said regulators had warned Apple about the iPhone maker’s move earlier this week to block Epic’s potential return. “I take note with satisfaction that following our contacts Apple decided to backtrack its decision on Epic exclusion. From Day 2, #DMA is already showing very concrete results!” Breton said on Twitter/X. Epic and Apple have been in a legal battle since 2020, when the gaming firm alleged that Apple’s practice of charging up to 30% commissions on in-app payments on its iOS devices violated US antitrust rules. Epic lost its court battle against Apple, and the game maker’s bold gambit to intentionally break Apple’s rules as a protest got it banned from Apple’s devices. Other Apple critics that have not purposely broken Apple’s rules – even ones such as Spotify, which earlier this week prevailed in persuading EU antitrust regulators to impose a €1.84bn ($2bn) fine for anticompetitive actions in the digital music market – have not been removed from Apple’s app store. Developer accounts serve as pawns in larger battle The most recent tangle between Apple and Epic involved Apple’s developer accounts, which are normally a minor but necessary administrative step for developers before selling apps on Apple devices. Apple on Friday reinstated Epic Games’s developer account two days after it had blocked the company from launching its own online marketplace on iPhones and iPads in Europe. The game developer said it will move on with its plans to bring the Epic Games store and the Fortnite game back to iOS in the continent. “This sends a strong signal to developers that the European Commission will act swiftly to enforce the Digital Markets Act and hold gatekeepers accountable,” Epic Games added. Apple earlier this week said it had terminated Epic’s account because the company’s actions made it doubt whether it intended to follow the new rules Apple has set out to comply with the DMA. “Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement and accepted into the Apple Developer Program,” Apple said in a statement. Under pressure from European regulators, Apple took a step back in its feud with Epic Games on Friday, clearing the way for Epic to put Fortnite and its own game store on iPhones and iPads in Europe. Earlier this week, Apple had taken steps to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back the popular game, which Apple removed from its App Store in 2020 after Epic broke the iPhone maker’s in-app payment rules in protest. The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple Read more Apple’s decision to open its door to Epic follows the EU’s Thursday deadline for big tech companies to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a set of rules that bans Apple and Google from controlling which apps are distributed on devices with the iOS and Android operating systems. Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry chief, said regulators had warned Apple about the iPhone maker’s move earlier this week to block Epic’s potential return. “I take note with satisfaction that following our contacts Apple decided to backtrack its decision on Epic exclusion. From Day 2, #DMA is already showing very concrete results!” Breton said on Twitter/X. Epic and Apple have been in a legal battle since 2020, when the gaming firm alleged that Apple’s practice of charging up to 30% commissions on in-app payments on its iOS devices violated US antitrust rules. Epic lost its court battle against Apple, and the game maker’s bold gambit to intentionally break Apple’s rules as a protest got it banned from Apple’s devices. Other Apple critics that have not purposely broken Apple’s rules – even ones such as Spotify, which earlier this week prevailed in persuading EU antitrust regulators to impose a €1.84bn ($2bn) fine for anticompetitive actions in the digital music market – have not been removed from Apple’s app store. Developer accounts serve as pawns in larger battle The most recent tangle between Apple and Epic involved Apple’s developer accounts, which are normally a minor but necessary administrative step for developers before selling apps on Apple devices. Apple on Friday reinstated Epic Games’s developer account two days after it had blocked the company from launching its own online marketplace on iPhones and iPads in Europe. The game developer said it will move on with its plans to bring the Epic Games store and the Fortnite game back to iOS in the continent. “This sends a strong signal to developers that the European Commission will act swiftly to enforce the Digital Markets Act and hold gatekeepers accountable,” Epic Games added. Apple earlier this week said it had terminated Epic’s account because the company’s actions made it doubt whether it intended to follow the new rules Apple has set out to comply with the DMA. “Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement and accepted into the Apple Developer Program,” Apple said in a statement. Under pressure from European regulators, Apple took a step back in its feud with Epic Games on Friday, clearing the way for Epic to put Fortnite and its own game store on iPhones and iPads in Europe. Earlier this week, Apple had taken steps to block Epic from starting up a store and bringing back the popular game, which Apple removed from its App Store in 2020 after Epic broke the iPhone maker’s in-app payment rules in protest. The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple Read more The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple Read more The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple Read more The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple The curious case of Epic Games: how the developer beat Google but not Apple Apple’s decision to open its door to Epic follows the EU’s Thursday deadline for big tech companies to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a set of rules that bans Apple and Google from controlling which apps are distributed on devices with the iOS and Android operating systems. Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry chief, said regulators had warned Apple about the iPhone maker’s move earlier this week to block Epic’s potential return. “I take note with satisfaction that following our contacts Apple decided to backtrack its decision on Epic exclusion. From Day 2, #DMA is already showing very concrete results!” Breton said on Twitter/X. Epic and Apple have been in a legal battle since 2020, when the gaming firm alleged that Apple’s practice of charging up to 30% commissions on in-app payments on its iOS devices violated US antitrust rules. Epic lost its court battle against Apple, and the game maker’s bold gambit to intentionally break Apple’s rules as a protest got it banned from Apple’s devices. Other Apple critics that have not purposely broken Apple’s rules – even ones such as Spotify, which earlier this week prevailed in persuading EU antitrust regulators to impose a €1.84bn ($2bn) fine for anticompetitive actions in the digital music market – have not been removed from Apple’s app store. The most recent tangle between Apple and Epic involved Apple’s developer accounts, which are normally a minor but necessary administrative step for developers before selling apps on Apple devices. Apple on Friday reinstated Epic Games’s developer account two days after it had blocked the company from launching its own online marketplace on iPhones and iPads in Europe. The game developer said it will move on with its plans to bring the Epic Games store and the Fortnite game back to iOS in the continent. “This sends a strong signal to developers that the European Commission will act swiftly to enforce the Digital Markets Act and hold gatekeepers accountable,” Epic Games added. Apple earlier this week said it had terminated Epic’s account because the company’s actions made it doubt whether it intended to follow the new rules Apple has set out to comply with the DMA. “Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement and accepted into the Apple Developer Program,” Apple said in a statement. Explore more on these topics Technology Fortnite Apple Games news Share Reuse this content Technology Fortnite Apple Games news |
Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London This article is more than 1 year old Attenders reiterate call for ceasefire in Gaza and condemn PM’s comments linking protests to ‘extremism’ Middle East crisis – latest updates Tens of thousands of people marched through central London on Saturday reiterating calls for a ceasefire in Gaza in the first national demonstration since Rishi Sunak suggested pro-Palestine demonstrations were a display of “extremism”. The march began in Hyde Park Corner and ended outside the US embassy in Nine Elms. Near the start of the march, a crowd gathered around drummers, whose instruments were clad with the Palestinian flag and who played to chants calling for an end to Israeli occupation. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who organised the demonstration, said in a post on X that about 400,000 had attended the march. The Met police have yet to release their estimated count. The singer Charlotte Church was among the demonstrators. She told the PA news agency: “I am here today to call for an immediate ceasefire, to ask our government and governments all over the world to send as strong message as we possibly can. But a strong, a peaceful, a loving message, that’s what every single march that I’ve been on for Palestine has been about.” View image in fullscreen The singer Charlotte Church spoke to reporters at the demonstration. Photograph: Hollie Adams/Reuters This is the first national demonstration organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since the prime minster said there had been “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” since 7 October, in comments seen as a thinly veiled attack on pro-Palestine demonstrations. The media platform openDemocracy reported that 36 people who attended pro-Palestine rallies last year had been charged with an offence, and that the arrest rate at these marches was lower than at the most recent Glastonbury music festival. Sunak’s comments were condemned by demonstrators. Sundari Anitha, 50, said: “I am here to support Palestine, to call for an end to the genocide and to call out the double standards of our government. They are widening the concept of extremism to attack the right of people to protest. I’m here both to defend the rights of Palestinian people and also my freedom to criticise my government. View image in fullscreen Health workers leading chants at the protest. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I think behind this is an undercurrent of Islamophobia. Because this round of protests are in support of the Palestinian cause, it’s become very easy for the Tories to conflate this with extremism and for people to accept this because there is a subconscious association of Muslims with extremism. They are playing on this.” Late last month, at least 112 people were killed and 760 were injured during an incident in Gaza where desperate crowds gathered around aid trucks and Israeli troops opened fire. Anitha said: “We are just standing by and letting a whole population starve. We’ve been there before. We’ve been there in Bosnia, we’ve been there in the 1940s. It’s a repeat of that scenario that is happening. The whole meaning of the term never again is to say that the world should not stand by and let a people be starved to death. We are just standing by and doing that.” View image in fullscreen Nick Laws attended with his son. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nick Laws, 47, was equally critical of Sunak. He said: “Honestly, my reaction is fuck you, Rishi. It’s as simple as that. I’m not a man who swears often but that guy gets me angry. Who is he to tell me that I’m not allowed to be disgusted with innocent people being murdered. Keir Starmer is cut from the same cloth. He might make different noises but his reluctance to call murder ‘murder’ shows me everything about him I need to know.” He noted the different tone the government uses when discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said: “The lack of empathy for the Gazan people compared to how the government reacted over Russia’s invasion in Ukraine is just an absolute disgrace. To me, there is no choice but to come out and show our genuine disgust about how the government is dealing with this, which is not at all.” View image in fullscreen Nadia Spurr, pictured with her granddaughter, Janna Kabuyinjie, said the events unfolding in Gaza were ‘heartbreaking’. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nadia Spurr, 71, said the images and events coming out of Gaza were “heartbreaking”. “World leaders are just sitting back and doing nothing and just pretending life goes on. These people are getting killed, babies are dying and they’re doing nothing. “Where are all the Arab countries that can do something? Where are the leaders who can do something. What are they doing? Nothing. People are dying all the time. Babies in incubators are dying,” she said. “We have to keep protesting until this stops. We can’t stop protesting.” This was the tenth national demonstration for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel news Share Reuse this content Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London This article is more than 1 year old Attenders reiterate call for ceasefire in Gaza and condemn PM’s comments linking protests to ‘extremism’ Middle East crisis – latest updates Tens of thousands of people marched through central London on Saturday reiterating calls for a ceasefire in Gaza in the first national demonstration since Rishi Sunak suggested pro-Palestine demonstrations were a display of “extremism”. The march began in Hyde Park Corner and ended outside the US embassy in Nine Elms. Near the start of the march, a crowd gathered around drummers, whose instruments were clad with the Palestinian flag and who played to chants calling for an end to Israeli occupation. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who organised the demonstration, said in a post on X that about 400,000 had attended the march. The Met police have yet to release their estimated count. The singer Charlotte Church was among the demonstrators. She told the PA news agency: “I am here today to call for an immediate ceasefire, to ask our government and governments all over the world to send as strong message as we possibly can. But a strong, a peaceful, a loving message, that’s what every single march that I’ve been on for Palestine has been about.” View image in fullscreen The singer Charlotte Church spoke to reporters at the demonstration. Photograph: Hollie Adams/Reuters This is the first national demonstration organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since the prime minster said there had been “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” since 7 October, in comments seen as a thinly veiled attack on pro-Palestine demonstrations. The media platform openDemocracy reported that 36 people who attended pro-Palestine rallies last year had been charged with an offence, and that the arrest rate at these marches was lower than at the most recent Glastonbury music festival. Sunak’s comments were condemned by demonstrators. Sundari Anitha, 50, said: “I am here to support Palestine, to call for an end to the genocide and to call out the double standards of our government. They are widening the concept of extremism to attack the right of people to protest. I’m here both to defend the rights of Palestinian people and also my freedom to criticise my government. View image in fullscreen Health workers leading chants at the protest. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I think behind this is an undercurrent of Islamophobia. Because this round of protests are in support of the Palestinian cause, it’s become very easy for the Tories to conflate this with extremism and for people to accept this because there is a subconscious association of Muslims with extremism. They are playing on this.” Late last month, at least 112 people were killed and 760 were injured during an incident in Gaza where desperate crowds gathered around aid trucks and Israeli troops opened fire. Anitha said: “We are just standing by and letting a whole population starve. We’ve been there before. We’ve been there in Bosnia, we’ve been there in the 1940s. It’s a repeat of that scenario that is happening. The whole meaning of the term never again is to say that the world should not stand by and let a people be starved to death. We are just standing by and doing that.” View image in fullscreen Nick Laws attended with his son. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nick Laws, 47, was equally critical of Sunak. He said: “Honestly, my reaction is fuck you, Rishi. It’s as simple as that. I’m not a man who swears often but that guy gets me angry. Who is he to tell me that I’m not allowed to be disgusted with innocent people being murdered. Keir Starmer is cut from the same cloth. He might make different noises but his reluctance to call murder ‘murder’ shows me everything about him I need to know.” He noted the different tone the government uses when discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said: “The lack of empathy for the Gazan people compared to how the government reacted over Russia’s invasion in Ukraine is just an absolute disgrace. To me, there is no choice but to come out and show our genuine disgust about how the government is dealing with this, which is not at all.” View image in fullscreen Nadia Spurr, pictured with her granddaughter, Janna Kabuyinjie, said the events unfolding in Gaza were ‘heartbreaking’. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nadia Spurr, 71, said the images and events coming out of Gaza were “heartbreaking”. “World leaders are just sitting back and doing nothing and just pretending life goes on. These people are getting killed, babies are dying and they’re doing nothing. “Where are all the Arab countries that can do something? Where are the leaders who can do something. What are they doing? Nothing. People are dying all the time. Babies in incubators are dying,” she said. “We have to keep protesting until this stops. We can’t stop protesting.” This was the tenth national demonstration for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel news Share Reuse this content Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer View image in fullscreen Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched from Hyde Park Corner to the US embassy in Nine Elms. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Attenders reiterate call for ceasefire in Gaza and condemn PM’s comments linking protests to ‘extremism’ Middle East crisis – latest updates Attenders reiterate call for ceasefire in Gaza and condemn PM’s comments linking protests to ‘extremism’ Middle East crisis – latest updates Attenders reiterate call for ceasefire in Gaza and condemn PM’s comments linking protests to ‘extremism’ Tens of thousands of people marched through central London on Saturday reiterating calls for a ceasefire in Gaza in the first national demonstration since Rishi Sunak suggested pro-Palestine demonstrations were a display of “extremism”. The march began in Hyde Park Corner and ended outside the US embassy in Nine Elms. Near the start of the march, a crowd gathered around drummers, whose instruments were clad with the Palestinian flag and who played to chants calling for an end to Israeli occupation. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who organised the demonstration, said in a post on X that about 400,000 had attended the march. The Met police have yet to release their estimated count. The singer Charlotte Church was among the demonstrators. She told the PA news agency: “I am here today to call for an immediate ceasefire, to ask our government and governments all over the world to send as strong message as we possibly can. But a strong, a peaceful, a loving message, that’s what every single march that I’ve been on for Palestine has been about.” View image in fullscreen The singer Charlotte Church spoke to reporters at the demonstration. Photograph: Hollie Adams/Reuters This is the first national demonstration organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since the prime minster said there had been “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” since 7 October, in comments seen as a thinly veiled attack on pro-Palestine demonstrations. The media platform openDemocracy reported that 36 people who attended pro-Palestine rallies last year had been charged with an offence, and that the arrest rate at these marches was lower than at the most recent Glastonbury music festival. Sunak’s comments were condemned by demonstrators. Sundari Anitha, 50, said: “I am here to support Palestine, to call for an end to the genocide and to call out the double standards of our government. They are widening the concept of extremism to attack the right of people to protest. I’m here both to defend the rights of Palestinian people and also my freedom to criticise my government. View image in fullscreen Health workers leading chants at the protest. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I think behind this is an undercurrent of Islamophobia. Because this round of protests are in support of the Palestinian cause, it’s become very easy for the Tories to conflate this with extremism and for people to accept this because there is a subconscious association of Muslims with extremism. They are playing on this.” Late last month, at least 112 people were killed and 760 were injured during an incident in Gaza where desperate crowds gathered around aid trucks and Israeli troops opened fire. Anitha said: “We are just standing by and letting a whole population starve. We’ve been there before. We’ve been there in Bosnia, we’ve been there in the 1940s. It’s a repeat of that scenario that is happening. The whole meaning of the term never again is to say that the world should not stand by and let a people be starved to death. We are just standing by and doing that.” View image in fullscreen Nick Laws attended with his son. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nick Laws, 47, was equally critical of Sunak. He said: “Honestly, my reaction is fuck you, Rishi. It’s as simple as that. I’m not a man who swears often but that guy gets me angry. Who is he to tell me that I’m not allowed to be disgusted with innocent people being murdered. Keir Starmer is cut from the same cloth. He might make different noises but his reluctance to call murder ‘murder’ shows me everything about him I need to know.” He noted the different tone the government uses when discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said: “The lack of empathy for the Gazan people compared to how the government reacted over Russia’s invasion in Ukraine is just an absolute disgrace. To me, there is no choice but to come out and show our genuine disgust about how the government is dealing with this, which is not at all.” View image in fullscreen Nadia Spurr, pictured with her granddaughter, Janna Kabuyinjie, said the events unfolding in Gaza were ‘heartbreaking’. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nadia Spurr, 71, said the images and events coming out of Gaza were “heartbreaking”. “World leaders are just sitting back and doing nothing and just pretending life goes on. These people are getting killed, babies are dying and they’re doing nothing. “Where are all the Arab countries that can do something? Where are the leaders who can do something. What are they doing? Nothing. People are dying all the time. Babies in incubators are dying,” she said. “We have to keep protesting until this stops. We can’t stop protesting.” This was the tenth national demonstration for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel news Share Reuse this content Tens of thousands of people marched through central London on Saturday reiterating calls for a ceasefire in Gaza in the first national demonstration since Rishi Sunak suggested pro-Palestine demonstrations were a display of “extremism”. The march began in Hyde Park Corner and ended outside the US embassy in Nine Elms. Near the start of the march, a crowd gathered around drummers, whose instruments were clad with the Palestinian flag and who played to chants calling for an end to Israeli occupation. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who organised the demonstration, said in a post on X that about 400,000 had attended the march. The Met police have yet to release their estimated count. The singer Charlotte Church was among the demonstrators. She told the PA news agency: “I am here today to call for an immediate ceasefire, to ask our government and governments all over the world to send as strong message as we possibly can. But a strong, a peaceful, a loving message, that’s what every single march that I’ve been on for Palestine has been about.” View image in fullscreen The singer Charlotte Church spoke to reporters at the demonstration. Photograph: Hollie Adams/Reuters This is the first national demonstration organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since the prime minster said there had been “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” since 7 October, in comments seen as a thinly veiled attack on pro-Palestine demonstrations. The media platform openDemocracy reported that 36 people who attended pro-Palestine rallies last year had been charged with an offence, and that the arrest rate at these marches was lower than at the most recent Glastonbury music festival. Sunak’s comments were condemned by demonstrators. Sundari Anitha, 50, said: “I am here to support Palestine, to call for an end to the genocide and to call out the double standards of our government. They are widening the concept of extremism to attack the right of people to protest. I’m here both to defend the rights of Palestinian people and also my freedom to criticise my government. View image in fullscreen Health workers leading chants at the protest. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I think behind this is an undercurrent of Islamophobia. Because this round of protests are in support of the Palestinian cause, it’s become very easy for the Tories to conflate this with extremism and for people to accept this because there is a subconscious association of Muslims with extremism. They are playing on this.” Late last month, at least 112 people were killed and 760 were injured during an incident in Gaza where desperate crowds gathered around aid trucks and Israeli troops opened fire. Anitha said: “We are just standing by and letting a whole population starve. We’ve been there before. We’ve been there in Bosnia, we’ve been there in the 1940s. It’s a repeat of that scenario that is happening. The whole meaning of the term never again is to say that the world should not stand by and let a people be starved to death. We are just standing by and doing that.” View image in fullscreen Nick Laws attended with his son. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nick Laws, 47, was equally critical of Sunak. He said: “Honestly, my reaction is fuck you, Rishi. It’s as simple as that. I’m not a man who swears often but that guy gets me angry. Who is he to tell me that I’m not allowed to be disgusted with innocent people being murdered. Keir Starmer is cut from the same cloth. He might make different noises but his reluctance to call murder ‘murder’ shows me everything about him I need to know.” He noted the different tone the government uses when discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said: “The lack of empathy for the Gazan people compared to how the government reacted over Russia’s invasion in Ukraine is just an absolute disgrace. To me, there is no choice but to come out and show our genuine disgust about how the government is dealing with this, which is not at all.” View image in fullscreen Nadia Spurr, pictured with her granddaughter, Janna Kabuyinjie, said the events unfolding in Gaza were ‘heartbreaking’. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nadia Spurr, 71, said the images and events coming out of Gaza were “heartbreaking”. “World leaders are just sitting back and doing nothing and just pretending life goes on. These people are getting killed, babies are dying and they’re doing nothing. “Where are all the Arab countries that can do something? Where are the leaders who can do something. What are they doing? Nothing. People are dying all the time. Babies in incubators are dying,” she said. “We have to keep protesting until this stops. We can’t stop protesting.” This was the tenth national demonstration for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel news Share Reuse this content Tens of thousands of people marched through central London on Saturday reiterating calls for a ceasefire in Gaza in the first national demonstration since Rishi Sunak suggested pro-Palestine demonstrations were a display of “extremism”. The march began in Hyde Park Corner and ended outside the US embassy in Nine Elms. Near the start of the march, a crowd gathered around drummers, whose instruments were clad with the Palestinian flag and who played to chants calling for an end to Israeli occupation. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who organised the demonstration, said in a post on X that about 400,000 had attended the march. The Met police have yet to release their estimated count. The singer Charlotte Church was among the demonstrators. She told the PA news agency: “I am here today to call for an immediate ceasefire, to ask our government and governments all over the world to send as strong message as we possibly can. But a strong, a peaceful, a loving message, that’s what every single march that I’ve been on for Palestine has been about.” View image in fullscreen The singer Charlotte Church spoke to reporters at the demonstration. Photograph: Hollie Adams/Reuters This is the first national demonstration organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since the prime minster said there had been “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” since 7 October, in comments seen as a thinly veiled attack on pro-Palestine demonstrations. The media platform openDemocracy reported that 36 people who attended pro-Palestine rallies last year had been charged with an offence, and that the arrest rate at these marches was lower than at the most recent Glastonbury music festival. Sunak’s comments were condemned by demonstrators. Sundari Anitha, 50, said: “I am here to support Palestine, to call for an end to the genocide and to call out the double standards of our government. They are widening the concept of extremism to attack the right of people to protest. I’m here both to defend the rights of Palestinian people and also my freedom to criticise my government. View image in fullscreen Health workers leading chants at the protest. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I think behind this is an undercurrent of Islamophobia. Because this round of protests are in support of the Palestinian cause, it’s become very easy for the Tories to conflate this with extremism and for people to accept this because there is a subconscious association of Muslims with extremism. They are playing on this.” Late last month, at least 112 people were killed and 760 were injured during an incident in Gaza where desperate crowds gathered around aid trucks and Israeli troops opened fire. Anitha said: “We are just standing by and letting a whole population starve. We’ve been there before. We’ve been there in Bosnia, we’ve been there in the 1940s. It’s a repeat of that scenario that is happening. The whole meaning of the term never again is to say that the world should not stand by and let a people be starved to death. We are just standing by and doing that.” View image in fullscreen Nick Laws attended with his son. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nick Laws, 47, was equally critical of Sunak. He said: “Honestly, my reaction is fuck you, Rishi. It’s as simple as that. I’m not a man who swears often but that guy gets me angry. Who is he to tell me that I’m not allowed to be disgusted with innocent people being murdered. Keir Starmer is cut from the same cloth. He might make different noises but his reluctance to call murder ‘murder’ shows me everything about him I need to know.” He noted the different tone the government uses when discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said: “The lack of empathy for the Gazan people compared to how the government reacted over Russia’s invasion in Ukraine is just an absolute disgrace. To me, there is no choice but to come out and show our genuine disgust about how the government is dealing with this, which is not at all.” View image in fullscreen Nadia Spurr, pictured with her granddaughter, Janna Kabuyinjie, said the events unfolding in Gaza were ‘heartbreaking’. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nadia Spurr, 71, said the images and events coming out of Gaza were “heartbreaking”. “World leaders are just sitting back and doing nothing and just pretending life goes on. These people are getting killed, babies are dying and they’re doing nothing. “Where are all the Arab countries that can do something? Where are the leaders who can do something. What are they doing? Nothing. People are dying all the time. Babies in incubators are dying,” she said. “We have to keep protesting until this stops. We can’t stop protesting.” This was the tenth national demonstration for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Tens of thousands of people marched through central London on Saturday reiterating calls for a ceasefire in Gaza in the first national demonstration since Rishi Sunak suggested pro-Palestine demonstrations were a display of “extremism”. The march began in Hyde Park Corner and ended outside the US embassy in Nine Elms. Near the start of the march, a crowd gathered around drummers, whose instruments were clad with the Palestinian flag and who played to chants calling for an end to Israeli occupation. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who organised the demonstration, said in a post on X that about 400,000 had attended the march. The Met police have yet to release their estimated count. The singer Charlotte Church was among the demonstrators. She told the PA news agency: “I am here today to call for an immediate ceasefire, to ask our government and governments all over the world to send as strong message as we possibly can. But a strong, a peaceful, a loving message, that’s what every single march that I’ve been on for Palestine has been about.” View image in fullscreen The singer Charlotte Church spoke to reporters at the demonstration. Photograph: Hollie Adams/Reuters This is the first national demonstration organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since the prime minster said there had been “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” since 7 October, in comments seen as a thinly veiled attack on pro-Palestine demonstrations. The media platform openDemocracy reported that 36 people who attended pro-Palestine rallies last year had been charged with an offence, and that the arrest rate at these marches was lower than at the most recent Glastonbury music festival. Sunak’s comments were condemned by demonstrators. Sundari Anitha, 50, said: “I am here to support Palestine, to call for an end to the genocide and to call out the double standards of our government. They are widening the concept of extremism to attack the right of people to protest. I’m here both to defend the rights of Palestinian people and also my freedom to criticise my government. View image in fullscreen Health workers leading chants at the protest. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer “I think behind this is an undercurrent of Islamophobia. Because this round of protests are in support of the Palestinian cause, it’s become very easy for the Tories to conflate this with extremism and for people to accept this because there is a subconscious association of Muslims with extremism. They are playing on this.” Late last month, at least 112 people were killed and 760 were injured during an incident in Gaza where desperate crowds gathered around aid trucks and Israeli troops opened fire. Anitha said: “We are just standing by and letting a whole population starve. We’ve been there before. We’ve been there in Bosnia, we’ve been there in the 1940s. It’s a repeat of that scenario that is happening. The whole meaning of the term never again is to say that the world should not stand by and let a people be starved to death. We are just standing by and doing that.” View image in fullscreen Nick Laws attended with his son. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nick Laws, 47, was equally critical of Sunak. He said: “Honestly, my reaction is fuck you, Rishi. It’s as simple as that. I’m not a man who swears often but that guy gets me angry. Who is he to tell me that I’m not allowed to be disgusted with innocent people being murdered. Keir Starmer is cut from the same cloth. He might make different noises but his reluctance to call murder ‘murder’ shows me everything about him I need to know.” He noted the different tone the government uses when discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said: “The lack of empathy for the Gazan people compared to how the government reacted over Russia’s invasion in Ukraine is just an absolute disgrace. To me, there is no choice but to come out and show our genuine disgust about how the government is dealing with this, which is not at all.” View image in fullscreen Nadia Spurr, pictured with her granddaughter, Janna Kabuyinjie, said the events unfolding in Gaza were ‘heartbreaking’. Photograph: Andy Hall/The Observer Nadia Spurr, 71, said the images and events coming out of Gaza were “heartbreaking”. “World leaders are just sitting back and doing nothing and just pretending life goes on. These people are getting killed, babies are dying and they’re doing nothing. “Where are all the Arab countries that can do something? Where are the leaders who can do something. What are they doing? Nothing. People are dying all the time. Babies in incubators are dying,” she said. “We have to keep protesting until this stops. We can’t stop protesting.” This was the tenth national demonstration for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Tens of thousands of people marched through central London on Saturday reiterating calls for a ceasefire in Gaza in the first national demonstration since Rishi Sunak suggested pro-Palestine demonstrations were a display of “extremism”. The march began in Hyde Park Corner and ended outside the US embassy in Nine Elms. Near the start of the march, a crowd gathered around drummers, whose instruments were clad with the Palestinian flag and who played to chants calling for an end to Israeli occupation. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who organised the demonstration, said in a post on X that about 400,000 had attended the march. The Met police have yet to release their estimated count. The singer Charlotte Church was among the demonstrators. She told the PA news agency: “I am here today to call for an immediate ceasefire, to ask our government and governments all over the world to send as strong message as we possibly can. But a strong, a peaceful, a loving message, that’s what every single march that I’ve been on for Palestine has been about.” This is the first national demonstration organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign since the prime minster said there had been “a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality” since 7 October, in comments seen as a thinly veiled attack on pro-Palestine demonstrations. The media platform openDemocracy reported that 36 people who attended pro-Palestine rallies last year had been charged with an offence, and that the arrest rate at these marches was lower than at the most recent Glastonbury music festival. Sunak’s comments were condemned by demonstrators. Sundari Anitha, 50, said: “I am here to support Palestine, to call for an end to the genocide and to call out the double standards of our government. They are widening the concept of extremism to attack the right of people to protest. I’m here both to defend the rights of Palestinian people and also my freedom to criticise my government. “I think behind this is an undercurrent of Islamophobia. Because this round of protests are in support of the Palestinian cause, it’s become very easy for the Tories to conflate this with extremism and for people to accept this because there is a subconscious association of Muslims with extremism. They are playing on this.” Late last month, at least 112 people were killed and 760 were injured during an incident in Gaza where desperate crowds gathered around aid trucks and Israeli troops opened fire. Anitha said: “We are just standing by and letting a whole population starve. We’ve been there before. We’ve been there in Bosnia, we’ve been there in the 1940s. It’s a repeat of that scenario that is happening. The whole meaning of the term never again is to say that the world should not stand by and let a people be starved to death. We are just standing by and doing that.” Nick Laws, 47, was equally critical of Sunak. He said: “Honestly, my reaction is fuck you, Rishi. It’s as simple as that. I’m not a man who swears often but that guy gets me angry. Who is he to tell me that I’m not allowed to be disgusted with innocent people being murdered. Keir Starmer is cut from the same cloth. He might make different noises but his reluctance to call murder ‘murder’ shows me everything about him I need to know.” He noted the different tone the government uses when discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said: “The lack of empathy for the Gazan people compared to how the government reacted over Russia’s invasion in Ukraine is just an absolute disgrace. To me, there is no choice but to come out and show our genuine disgust about how the government is dealing with this, which is not at all.” Nadia Spurr, 71, said the images and events coming out of Gaza were “heartbreaking”. “World leaders are just sitting back and doing nothing and just pretending life goes on. These people are getting killed, babies are dying and they’re doing nothing. “Where are all the Arab countries that can do something? Where are the leaders who can do something. What are they doing? Nothing. People are dying all the time. Babies in incubators are dying,” she said. “We have to keep protesting until this stops. We can’t stop protesting.” This was the tenth national demonstration for Palestine organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel news Share Reuse this content London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel news |
Tens of thousands of people march through London calling for Gaza ceasefire – video
1:30 This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of people march through London calling for Gaza ceasefire – video This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of people gathered in central London for the 10th national demonstration calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstration is the first since Rishi Sunak made a provocative speech in which he suggested pro-Palestine protests were a display of extremism. Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, criticised the prime minister's remarks and insisted the demonstrations were peaceful, saying: 'There will be 250,000 or more people here today. There have been less arrests at these marches than an average music festival' Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London Biden caught saying he and Netanyahu need to have ‘come to Jesus meeting’ Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel 1:30 This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of people march through London calling for Gaza ceasefire – video This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of people gathered in central London for the 10th national demonstration calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstration is the first since Rishi Sunak made a provocative speech in which he suggested pro-Palestine protests were a display of extremism. Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, criticised the prime minister's remarks and insisted the demonstrations were peaceful, saying: 'There will be 250,000 or more people here today. There have been less arrests at these marches than an average music festival' Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London Biden caught saying he and Netanyahu need to have ‘come to Jesus meeting’ Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of people march through London calling for Gaza ceasefire – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of people march through London calling for Gaza ceasefire – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of people march through London calling for Gaza ceasefire – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Tens of thousands of people gathered in central London for the 10th national demonstration calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstration is the first since Rishi Sunak made a provocative speech in which he suggested pro-Palestine protests were a display of extremism. Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, criticised the prime minister's remarks and insisted the demonstrations were peaceful, saying: 'There will be 250,000 or more people here today. There have been less arrests at these marches than an average music festival' Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London Biden caught saying he and Netanyahu need to have ‘come to Jesus meeting’ Tens of thousands of people gathered in central London for the 10th national demonstration calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstration is the first since Rishi Sunak made a provocative speech in which he suggested pro-Palestine protests were a display of extremism. Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, criticised the prime minister's remarks and insisted the demonstrations were peaceful, saying: 'There will be 250,000 or more people here today. There have been less arrests at these marches than an average music festival' Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London Biden caught saying he and Netanyahu need to have ‘come to Jesus meeting’ Tens of thousands of people gathered in central London for the 10th national demonstration calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstration is the first since Rishi Sunak made a provocative speech in which he suggested pro-Palestine protests were a display of extremism. Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, criticised the prime minister's remarks and insisted the demonstrations were peaceful, saying: 'There will be 250,000 or more people here today. There have been less arrests at these marches than an average music festival' Tens of thousands of pro-Palestine protesters march through London Biden caught saying he and Netanyahu need to have ‘come to Jesus meeting’ Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel Explore more on these topics London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel London Protest Israel-Gaza war Palestine Gaza Israel |
‘We don’t need another bar’: St Andrews film fans take on Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake
The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy View image in fullscreen The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old ‘We don’t need another bar’: St Andrews film fans take on Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake This article is more than 1 year old Celebrity plan to turn a much-loved retro cinema into a sports bar faces stiff opposition from thousands of angry movie goers In central St Andrews, the New Picture House (NPH) independent cinema, with its 1930s facade and distinctive pointed roof towering above nearby restaurants and houses, has stood relatively unchanged for the past 94 years. Open every day of the week and boasting three screens, the category B listed building has showed blockbusters and independent films, as well as plays, community events and festivals, for the best part of a century. But it will soon be closing its doors, to be replaced by a luxury sports bar run by two celebrities – golfer Tiger Woods and pop star Justin Timberlake – and local opposition is growing. In the days following the announcement last October, an online petition opposing the plans amassed thousands of signatures. Last month, a peaceful protest organised jointly by St Andrews film society and St Andrews film festival saw film lovers flock to the cinema in an attempt to ensure screenings of movies such as Mean Girls and American Fiction were sold out, in an effort to demonstrate to the owners that the cinema was financially viable. However, both owners have indicated that they intend to progress with the project. Plans from Woods and Timberlake, who have already teamed up to launch a dining and entertainment brand, T-Squared Social, in New York City’s Manhattan, outline their aim to convert it into a gastropub with televised sports and golf simulators, keeping one screen for new cinema releases. The plans have been endorsed by one of its directors, David Morris, who said dwindling ticket sales meant the cinema was no longer viable. “The news of the closure was devastating to everyone in St Andrews,” said St Andrews film society president Ash Johann Curry-Machado, who is 22 and in his final year of a film studies degree at the university. “The NPH is a crucial pillar of our community, and that’s why we all came together, because the cinema really does mean a lot to all of us. “As our only cinema, it’s imperative we protect it at all costs because we simply don’t have an alternative that doesn’t involve travelling to Dundee or further. If the NPH is experiencing financial difficulties, it’s our duty as a community to improve it and reach a wider audience, not just entirely give up on it.” The film society and its supporters were engaging with local councillors and MSPs on the issue, he said. View image in fullscreen Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake. Photograph: Andrew Redington/Getty Images Among those supporting the petition are many who credit the NPH for careers in film and the arts. “It fills me with such despair to see yet another venue in Scotland where culture is public and accessible being threatened with closure, especially in a small place with a thriving student population,” said writer and director Cat Macleod, who graduated in English and film from St Andrews University in 2011. “[Another bar] is the last thing the town needs.” Freelance arts critic Dominic Corr still lives in St Andrews, where he grew up, and said his first experience of the NPH was seeing Disney’s Mulan in 1998 with his dad. “NPH offered the opportunity to experience cinema with peers and the community of film students from the university, families, and older audiences, away from the heavily commercial dressings of larger chain cinemas in faraway cities,” he said. But some locals back the development. One woman who asked not to be named told the Observer : “It’s a private business and the owners can do what they like with it as far as I’m concerned. It’s exciting for the place to be spoken about alongside big celebrities like this.” NPH owners did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for T-Squared Social said the venue had not been viable for years, with less than 10% occupancy. “The involvement of T-Squared Social not only allows a cinema offering to be retained in St Andrews, but indeed the building itself, through the delivery of a blended cinema, dining and entertainment offering. “We have listened to the feedback from the community and will shortly be able to announce our revised proposals prior to the submission of a planning application to Fife council.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Scotland The Observer University of St Andrews Tiger Woods Justin Timberlake US sports news Share Reuse this content The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy View image in fullscreen The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old ‘We don’t need another bar’: St Andrews film fans take on Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake This article is more than 1 year old Celebrity plan to turn a much-loved retro cinema into a sports bar faces stiff opposition from thousands of angry movie goers In central St Andrews, the New Picture House (NPH) independent cinema, with its 1930s facade and distinctive pointed roof towering above nearby restaurants and houses, has stood relatively unchanged for the past 94 years. Open every day of the week and boasting three screens, the category B listed building has showed blockbusters and independent films, as well as plays, community events and festivals, for the best part of a century. But it will soon be closing its doors, to be replaced by a luxury sports bar run by two celebrities – golfer Tiger Woods and pop star Justin Timberlake – and local opposition is growing. In the days following the announcement last October, an online petition opposing the plans amassed thousands of signatures. Last month, a peaceful protest organised jointly by St Andrews film society and St Andrews film festival saw film lovers flock to the cinema in an attempt to ensure screenings of movies such as Mean Girls and American Fiction were sold out, in an effort to demonstrate to the owners that the cinema was financially viable. However, both owners have indicated that they intend to progress with the project. Plans from Woods and Timberlake, who have already teamed up to launch a dining and entertainment brand, T-Squared Social, in New York City’s Manhattan, outline their aim to convert it into a gastropub with televised sports and golf simulators, keeping one screen for new cinema releases. The plans have been endorsed by one of its directors, David Morris, who said dwindling ticket sales meant the cinema was no longer viable. “The news of the closure was devastating to everyone in St Andrews,” said St Andrews film society president Ash Johann Curry-Machado, who is 22 and in his final year of a film studies degree at the university. “The NPH is a crucial pillar of our community, and that’s why we all came together, because the cinema really does mean a lot to all of us. “As our only cinema, it’s imperative we protect it at all costs because we simply don’t have an alternative that doesn’t involve travelling to Dundee or further. If the NPH is experiencing financial difficulties, it’s our duty as a community to improve it and reach a wider audience, not just entirely give up on it.” The film society and its supporters were engaging with local councillors and MSPs on the issue, he said. View image in fullscreen Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake. Photograph: Andrew Redington/Getty Images Among those supporting the petition are many who credit the NPH for careers in film and the arts. “It fills me with such despair to see yet another venue in Scotland where culture is public and accessible being threatened with closure, especially in a small place with a thriving student population,” said writer and director Cat Macleod, who graduated in English and film from St Andrews University in 2011. “[Another bar] is the last thing the town needs.” Freelance arts critic Dominic Corr still lives in St Andrews, where he grew up, and said his first experience of the NPH was seeing Disney’s Mulan in 1998 with his dad. “NPH offered the opportunity to experience cinema with peers and the community of film students from the university, families, and older audiences, away from the heavily commercial dressings of larger chain cinemas in faraway cities,” he said. But some locals back the development. One woman who asked not to be named told the Observer : “It’s a private business and the owners can do what they like with it as far as I’m concerned. It’s exciting for the place to be spoken about alongside big celebrities like this.” NPH owners did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for T-Squared Social said the venue had not been viable for years, with less than 10% occupancy. “The involvement of T-Squared Social not only allows a cinema offering to be retained in St Andrews, but indeed the building itself, through the delivery of a blended cinema, dining and entertainment offering. “We have listened to the feedback from the community and will shortly be able to announce our revised proposals prior to the submission of a planning application to Fife council.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Scotland The Observer University of St Andrews Tiger Woods Justin Timberlake US sports news Share Reuse this content The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy View image in fullscreen The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy View image in fullscreen The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy View image in fullscreen The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy View image in fullscreen The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy The New Picture House in St Andrews, Scotland. Photograph: Kay Roxby/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old ‘We don’t need another bar’: St Andrews film fans take on Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘We don’t need another bar’: St Andrews film fans take on Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘We don’t need another bar’: St Andrews film fans take on Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Celebrity plan to turn a much-loved retro cinema into a sports bar faces stiff opposition from thousands of angry movie goers Celebrity plan to turn a much-loved retro cinema into a sports bar faces stiff opposition from thousands of angry movie goers Celebrity plan to turn a much-loved retro cinema into a sports bar faces stiff opposition from thousands of angry movie goers In central St Andrews, the New Picture House (NPH) independent cinema, with its 1930s facade and distinctive pointed roof towering above nearby restaurants and houses, has stood relatively unchanged for the past 94 years. Open every day of the week and boasting three screens, the category B listed building has showed blockbusters and independent films, as well as plays, community events and festivals, for the best part of a century. But it will soon be closing its doors, to be replaced by a luxury sports bar run by two celebrities – golfer Tiger Woods and pop star Justin Timberlake – and local opposition is growing. In the days following the announcement last October, an online petition opposing the plans amassed thousands of signatures. Last month, a peaceful protest organised jointly by St Andrews film society and St Andrews film festival saw film lovers flock to the cinema in an attempt to ensure screenings of movies such as Mean Girls and American Fiction were sold out, in an effort to demonstrate to the owners that the cinema was financially viable. However, both owners have indicated that they intend to progress with the project. Plans from Woods and Timberlake, who have already teamed up to launch a dining and entertainment brand, T-Squared Social, in New York City’s Manhattan, outline their aim to convert it into a gastropub with televised sports and golf simulators, keeping one screen for new cinema releases. The plans have been endorsed by one of its directors, David Morris, who said dwindling ticket sales meant the cinema was no longer viable. “The news of the closure was devastating to everyone in St Andrews,” said St Andrews film society president Ash Johann Curry-Machado, who is 22 and in his final year of a film studies degree at the university. “The NPH is a crucial pillar of our community, and that’s why we all came together, because the cinema really does mean a lot to all of us. “As our only cinema, it’s imperative we protect it at all costs because we simply don’t have an alternative that doesn’t involve travelling to Dundee or further. If the NPH is experiencing financial difficulties, it’s our duty as a community to improve it and reach a wider audience, not just entirely give up on it.” The film society and its supporters were engaging with local councillors and MSPs on the issue, he said. View image in fullscreen Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake. Photograph: Andrew Redington/Getty Images Among those supporting the petition are many who credit the NPH for careers in film and the arts. “It fills me with such despair to see yet another venue in Scotland where culture is public and accessible being threatened with closure, especially in a small place with a thriving student population,” said writer and director Cat Macleod, who graduated in English and film from St Andrews University in 2011. “[Another bar] is the last thing the town needs.” Freelance arts critic Dominic Corr still lives in St Andrews, where he grew up, and said his first experience of the NPH was seeing Disney’s Mulan in 1998 with his dad. “NPH offered the opportunity to experience cinema with peers and the community of film students from the university, families, and older audiences, away from the heavily commercial dressings of larger chain cinemas in faraway cities,” he said. But some locals back the development. One woman who asked not to be named told the Observer : “It’s a private business and the owners can do what they like with it as far as I’m concerned. It’s exciting for the place to be spoken about alongside big celebrities like this.” NPH owners did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for T-Squared Social said the venue had not been viable for years, with less than 10% occupancy. “The involvement of T-Squared Social not only allows a cinema offering to be retained in St Andrews, but indeed the building itself, through the delivery of a blended cinema, dining and entertainment offering. “We have listened to the feedback from the community and will shortly be able to announce our revised proposals prior to the submission of a planning application to Fife council.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Scotland The Observer University of St Andrews Tiger Woods Justin Timberlake US sports news Share Reuse this content In central St Andrews, the New Picture House (NPH) independent cinema, with its 1930s facade and distinctive pointed roof towering above nearby restaurants and houses, has stood relatively unchanged for the past 94 years. Open every day of the week and boasting three screens, the category B listed building has showed blockbusters and independent films, as well as plays, community events and festivals, for the best part of a century. But it will soon be closing its doors, to be replaced by a luxury sports bar run by two celebrities – golfer Tiger Woods and pop star Justin Timberlake – and local opposition is growing. In the days following the announcement last October, an online petition opposing the plans amassed thousands of signatures. Last month, a peaceful protest organised jointly by St Andrews film society and St Andrews film festival saw film lovers flock to the cinema in an attempt to ensure screenings of movies such as Mean Girls and American Fiction were sold out, in an effort to demonstrate to the owners that the cinema was financially viable. However, both owners have indicated that they intend to progress with the project. Plans from Woods and Timberlake, who have already teamed up to launch a dining and entertainment brand, T-Squared Social, in New York City’s Manhattan, outline their aim to convert it into a gastropub with televised sports and golf simulators, keeping one screen for new cinema releases. The plans have been endorsed by one of its directors, David Morris, who said dwindling ticket sales meant the cinema was no longer viable. “The news of the closure was devastating to everyone in St Andrews,” said St Andrews film society president Ash Johann Curry-Machado, who is 22 and in his final year of a film studies degree at the university. “The NPH is a crucial pillar of our community, and that’s why we all came together, because the cinema really does mean a lot to all of us. “As our only cinema, it’s imperative we protect it at all costs because we simply don’t have an alternative that doesn’t involve travelling to Dundee or further. If the NPH is experiencing financial difficulties, it’s our duty as a community to improve it and reach a wider audience, not just entirely give up on it.” The film society and its supporters were engaging with local councillors and MSPs on the issue, he said. View image in fullscreen Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake. Photograph: Andrew Redington/Getty Images Among those supporting the petition are many who credit the NPH for careers in film and the arts. “It fills me with such despair to see yet another venue in Scotland where culture is public and accessible being threatened with closure, especially in a small place with a thriving student population,” said writer and director Cat Macleod, who graduated in English and film from St Andrews University in 2011. “[Another bar] is the last thing the town needs.” Freelance arts critic Dominic Corr still lives in St Andrews, where he grew up, and said his first experience of the NPH was seeing Disney’s Mulan in 1998 with his dad. “NPH offered the opportunity to experience cinema with peers and the community of film students from the university, families, and older audiences, away from the heavily commercial dressings of larger chain cinemas in faraway cities,” he said. But some locals back the development. One woman who asked not to be named told the Observer : “It’s a private business and the owners can do what they like with it as far as I’m concerned. It’s exciting for the place to be spoken about alongside big celebrities like this.” NPH owners did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for T-Squared Social said the venue had not been viable for years, with less than 10% occupancy. “The involvement of T-Squared Social not only allows a cinema offering to be retained in St Andrews, but indeed the building itself, through the delivery of a blended cinema, dining and entertainment offering. “We have listened to the feedback from the community and will shortly be able to announce our revised proposals prior to the submission of a planning application to Fife council.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Scotland The Observer University of St Andrews Tiger Woods Justin Timberlake US sports news Share Reuse this content In central St Andrews, the New Picture House (NPH) independent cinema, with its 1930s facade and distinctive pointed roof towering above nearby restaurants and houses, has stood relatively unchanged for the past 94 years. Open every day of the week and boasting three screens, the category B listed building has showed blockbusters and independent films, as well as plays, community events and festivals, for the best part of a century. But it will soon be closing its doors, to be replaced by a luxury sports bar run by two celebrities – golfer Tiger Woods and pop star Justin Timberlake – and local opposition is growing. In the days following the announcement last October, an online petition opposing the plans amassed thousands of signatures. Last month, a peaceful protest organised jointly by St Andrews film society and St Andrews film festival saw film lovers flock to the cinema in an attempt to ensure screenings of movies such as Mean Girls and American Fiction were sold out, in an effort to demonstrate to the owners that the cinema was financially viable. However, both owners have indicated that they intend to progress with the project. Plans from Woods and Timberlake, who have already teamed up to launch a dining and entertainment brand, T-Squared Social, in New York City’s Manhattan, outline their aim to convert it into a gastropub with televised sports and golf simulators, keeping one screen for new cinema releases. The plans have been endorsed by one of its directors, David Morris, who said dwindling ticket sales meant the cinema was no longer viable. “The news of the closure was devastating to everyone in St Andrews,” said St Andrews film society president Ash Johann Curry-Machado, who is 22 and in his final year of a film studies degree at the university. “The NPH is a crucial pillar of our community, and that’s why we all came together, because the cinema really does mean a lot to all of us. “As our only cinema, it’s imperative we protect it at all costs because we simply don’t have an alternative that doesn’t involve travelling to Dundee or further. If the NPH is experiencing financial difficulties, it’s our duty as a community to improve it and reach a wider audience, not just entirely give up on it.” The film society and its supporters were engaging with local councillors and MSPs on the issue, he said. View image in fullscreen Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake. Photograph: Andrew Redington/Getty Images Among those supporting the petition are many who credit the NPH for careers in film and the arts. “It fills me with such despair to see yet another venue in Scotland where culture is public and accessible being threatened with closure, especially in a small place with a thriving student population,” said writer and director Cat Macleod, who graduated in English and film from St Andrews University in 2011. “[Another bar] is the last thing the town needs.” Freelance arts critic Dominic Corr still lives in St Andrews, where he grew up, and said his first experience of the NPH was seeing Disney’s Mulan in 1998 with his dad. “NPH offered the opportunity to experience cinema with peers and the community of film students from the university, families, and older audiences, away from the heavily commercial dressings of larger chain cinemas in faraway cities,” he said. But some locals back the development. One woman who asked not to be named told the Observer : “It’s a private business and the owners can do what they like with it as far as I’m concerned. It’s exciting for the place to be spoken about alongside big celebrities like this.” NPH owners did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for T-Squared Social said the venue had not been viable for years, with less than 10% occupancy. “The involvement of T-Squared Social not only allows a cinema offering to be retained in St Andrews, but indeed the building itself, through the delivery of a blended cinema, dining and entertainment offering. “We have listened to the feedback from the community and will shortly be able to announce our revised proposals prior to the submission of a planning application to Fife council.” In central St Andrews, the New Picture House (NPH) independent cinema, with its 1930s facade and distinctive pointed roof towering above nearby restaurants and houses, has stood relatively unchanged for the past 94 years. Open every day of the week and boasting three screens, the category B listed building has showed blockbusters and independent films, as well as plays, community events and festivals, for the best part of a century. But it will soon be closing its doors, to be replaced by a luxury sports bar run by two celebrities – golfer Tiger Woods and pop star Justin Timberlake – and local opposition is growing. In the days following the announcement last October, an online petition opposing the plans amassed thousands of signatures. Last month, a peaceful protest organised jointly by St Andrews film society and St Andrews film festival saw film lovers flock to the cinema in an attempt to ensure screenings of movies such as Mean Girls and American Fiction were sold out, in an effort to demonstrate to the owners that the cinema was financially viable. However, both owners have indicated that they intend to progress with the project. Plans from Woods and Timberlake, who have already teamed up to launch a dining and entertainment brand, T-Squared Social, in New York City’s Manhattan, outline their aim to convert it into a gastropub with televised sports and golf simulators, keeping one screen for new cinema releases. The plans have been endorsed by one of its directors, David Morris, who said dwindling ticket sales meant the cinema was no longer viable. “The news of the closure was devastating to everyone in St Andrews,” said St Andrews film society president Ash Johann Curry-Machado, who is 22 and in his final year of a film studies degree at the university. “The NPH is a crucial pillar of our community, and that’s why we all came together, because the cinema really does mean a lot to all of us. “As our only cinema, it’s imperative we protect it at all costs because we simply don’t have an alternative that doesn’t involve travelling to Dundee or further. If the NPH is experiencing financial difficulties, it’s our duty as a community to improve it and reach a wider audience, not just entirely give up on it.” The film society and its supporters were engaging with local councillors and MSPs on the issue, he said. View image in fullscreen Tiger Woods and Justin Timberlake. Photograph: Andrew Redington/Getty Images Among those supporting the petition are many who credit the NPH for careers in film and the arts. “It fills me with such despair to see yet another venue in Scotland where culture is public and accessible being threatened with closure, especially in a small place with a thriving student population,” said writer and director Cat Macleod, who graduated in English and film from St Andrews University in 2011. “[Another bar] is the last thing the town needs.” Freelance arts critic Dominic Corr still lives in St Andrews, where he grew up, and said his first experience of the NPH was seeing Disney’s Mulan in 1998 with his dad. “NPH offered the opportunity to experience cinema with peers and the community of film students from the university, families, and older audiences, away from the heavily commercial dressings of larger chain cinemas in faraway cities,” he said. But some locals back the development. One woman who asked not to be named told the Observer : “It’s a private business and the owners can do what they like with it as far as I’m concerned. It’s exciting for the place to be spoken about alongside big celebrities like this.” NPH owners did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for T-Squared Social said the venue had not been viable for years, with less than 10% occupancy. “The involvement of T-Squared Social not only allows a cinema offering to be retained in St Andrews, but indeed the building itself, through the delivery of a blended cinema, dining and entertainment offering. “We have listened to the feedback from the community and will shortly be able to announce our revised proposals prior to the submission of a planning application to Fife council.” In central St Andrews, the New Picture House (NPH) independent cinema, with its 1930s facade and distinctive pointed roof towering above nearby restaurants and houses, has stood relatively unchanged for the past 94 years. Open every day of the week and boasting three screens, the category B listed building has showed blockbusters and independent films, as well as plays, community events and festivals, for the best part of a century. But it will soon be closing its doors, to be replaced by a luxury sports bar run by two celebrities – golfer Tiger Woods and pop star Justin Timberlake – and local opposition is growing. In the days following the announcement last October, an online petition opposing the plans amassed thousands of signatures. Last month, a peaceful protest organised jointly by St Andrews film society and St Andrews film festival saw film lovers flock to the cinema in an attempt to ensure screenings of movies such as Mean Girls and American Fiction were sold out, in an effort to demonstrate to the owners that the cinema was financially viable. However, both owners have indicated that they intend to progress with the project. Plans from Woods and Timberlake, who have already teamed up to launch a dining and entertainment brand, T-Squared Social, in New York City’s Manhattan, outline their aim to convert it into a gastropub with televised sports and golf simulators, keeping one screen for new cinema releases. The plans have been endorsed by one of its directors, David Morris, who said dwindling ticket sales meant the cinema was no longer viable. “The news of the closure was devastating to everyone in St Andrews,” said St Andrews film society president Ash Johann Curry-Machado, who is 22 and in his final year of a film studies degree at the university. “The NPH is a crucial pillar of our community, and that’s why we all came together, because the cinema really does mean a lot to all of us. “As our only cinema, it’s imperative we protect it at all costs because we simply don’t have an alternative that doesn’t involve travelling to Dundee or further. If the NPH is experiencing financial difficulties, it’s our duty as a community to improve it and reach a wider audience, not just entirely give up on it.” The film society and its supporters were engaging with local councillors and MSPs on the issue, he said. Among those supporting the petition are many who credit the NPH for careers in film and the arts. “It fills me with such despair to see yet another venue in Scotland where culture is public and accessible being threatened with closure, especially in a small place with a thriving student population,” said writer and director Cat Macleod, who graduated in English and film from St Andrews University in 2011. “[Another bar] is the last thing the town needs.” Freelance arts critic Dominic Corr still lives in St Andrews, where he grew up, and said his first experience of the NPH was seeing Disney’s Mulan in 1998 with his dad. “NPH offered the opportunity to experience cinema with peers and the community of film students from the university, families, and older audiences, away from the heavily commercial dressings of larger chain cinemas in faraway cities,” he said. But some locals back the development. One woman who asked not to be named told the Observer : “It’s a private business and the owners can do what they like with it as far as I’m concerned. It’s exciting for the place to be spoken about alongside big celebrities like this.” NPH owners did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for T-Squared Social said the venue had not been viable for years, with less than 10% occupancy. “The involvement of T-Squared Social not only allows a cinema offering to be retained in St Andrews, but indeed the building itself, through the delivery of a blended cinema, dining and entertainment offering. “We have listened to the feedback from the community and will shortly be able to announce our revised proposals prior to the submission of a planning application to Fife council.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Scotland The Observer University of St Andrews Tiger Woods Justin Timberlake US sports news Share Reuse this content Scotland The Observer University of St Andrews Tiger Woods Justin Timberlake US sports news |
Revealed: legal fears over Michael Gove’s new definition of ‘extremism’
Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Revealed: legal fears over Michael Gove’s new definition of ‘extremism’ This article is more than 1 year old The communities secretary wants ‘trailblazer’ government departments to pilot a scheme to ban individuals and groups deemed extremist from public life Michael Gove is set to announce a controversial plan this week to ban individuals and groups who “undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy” from public life, despite fears inside government that the scheme is at risk of a legal challenge, leaked documents reveal. Officials working for Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, have drawn up plans for “trailblazer” departments to pilot the scheme, according to documents that have been circulated to the Home Office and Downing Street and seen by the Observer . Organisations and individuals that breach a new official definition of extremism will be excluded from meetings or any engagement with ministers, senior civil servants, government advisory boards and funding. Councils will be expected to follow the government’s lead, cutting any financial ties or support to individuals or groups that have been categorised as extremist. The proposed new definition of extremism – first revealed by the Observer in November – says “core behaviours” that could constitute extremism include attempts to “overturn, exploit or undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy to confer advantages or disadvantages on specific groups” or threatening individual rights or enabling the spread of extremism. In internal briefing papers, Gove’s officials admit there is a risk of a legal challenge. Gove already faces strong opposition to the plans, including from civil liberties groups, officials and some senior Tory MPs. “The government wants to launch this without a public consultation on the definition, or proper engagement with faith leaders,” said one official who has seen the proposals. “It’s never going to work.” New measures to target groups defined as extremist by the government are part of Rishi Sunak’s drive to crack down on Islamist extremists and far-right groups. He warned in a speech outside No 10 on 1 March of streets that had been “hijacked by small groups” and protests that had descended into “intimidation, threats, and planned actions of violence”. Civil liberties groups are concerned it could brand legitimate organisations and individuals as extremists, suppressing freedom of speech. Some Tory MPs also fear that it could be used to ban socially conservative groups – for example, those that oppose same-sex marriage or abortion. “Refusing to engage with groups it disagrees with is becoming a pattern of behaviour from this government,” said Akiko Hart, director of Liberty. “It’s vital those in power do not silence the people set to be most affected by its policies.” The vetting scheme for the new policy has not yet been established. The briefing documents suggest that “trailblazer” departments will pilot the scheme. It is expected that the vetting units will check individuals and groups under new standards, which include demonstrating “any of the behaviours set out in the 2024 definition of extremism”. The documents circulated by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities warn: “There are some risks to this approach, including greater risk of legal challenge if we publish the principles without the due diligence system being operational.” Robin Simcox, the government’s commissioner for countering extremism, suggested in an article in the Telegraph last week that London should no longer be permitted “to be turned into a no-go zone for Jews every weekend”, referring to the regular pro-Palestinian marches. An official at the Board of Deputies of British Jews told the Times that while many British Jews felt unsafe in central London during the marches, he was not “particularly comfortable with the language of ‘no-go zones’.” In 2011, the government’s Prevent strategy defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The government proposed a bill in 2016 to “tackle the menace of extremism”, but it was shelved after the government failed to provide a legally acceptable definition of extremism . Alex Carlile, a crossbench peer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said there was a risk in proposing a new definition. He said: “A good definition would ensure a greater level of consistency in the way in which, for example, the policing of demonstrations takes place. If it is not a good definition, we risk making things worse.” Lord Carlile said he did not consider a new definition was necessary because there were laws already in place to deal with extremist groups, but more guidance for police forces in dealing with extremist groups would be helpful. The initial documents identified eight groups that could be captured by a proposed new definition of extremism, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Palestine Action. The MCB would be captured on “historical” grounds, according to the internal documents, and for refusing to “repudiate or rescind past behaviours”, and for its association with those who have demonstrated extremist behaviours, without providing critical challenge. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more The government has not confirmed whether it will identify specific groups when it launches the new extremism definition. It faces the risk of a legal challenge in banning individuals and organisations from funding and engagement with public bodies, based on a definition that is not enshrined in law. A MCB spokesperson said: “Extremism and terrorism are serious matters that require real leadership and not cynical electioneering. To suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain would fall under arbitrary definitions of extremism is offensive, ludicrous and dangerous. “We are a democratic organisation representing a cross-section of British Muslims. After standing accused of peddling Islamophobia , it is ironic that the governing party should lash out and accuse everyone else but themselves of extremism. We shall be monitoring developments and will seek to reserve our position legally.” Palestine Action said no new definition would deter it from campaigning. A government spokesperson said:“We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Politics The Observer UK security and counter-terrorism Counter-terrorism policy Michael Gove Conservatives Rishi Sunak Islamophobia news Share Reuse this content Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Revealed: legal fears over Michael Gove’s new definition of ‘extremism’ This article is more than 1 year old The communities secretary wants ‘trailblazer’ government departments to pilot a scheme to ban individuals and groups deemed extremist from public life Michael Gove is set to announce a controversial plan this week to ban individuals and groups who “undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy” from public life, despite fears inside government that the scheme is at risk of a legal challenge, leaked documents reveal. Officials working for Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, have drawn up plans for “trailblazer” departments to pilot the scheme, according to documents that have been circulated to the Home Office and Downing Street and seen by the Observer . Organisations and individuals that breach a new official definition of extremism will be excluded from meetings or any engagement with ministers, senior civil servants, government advisory boards and funding. Councils will be expected to follow the government’s lead, cutting any financial ties or support to individuals or groups that have been categorised as extremist. The proposed new definition of extremism – first revealed by the Observer in November – says “core behaviours” that could constitute extremism include attempts to “overturn, exploit or undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy to confer advantages or disadvantages on specific groups” or threatening individual rights or enabling the spread of extremism. In internal briefing papers, Gove’s officials admit there is a risk of a legal challenge. Gove already faces strong opposition to the plans, including from civil liberties groups, officials and some senior Tory MPs. “The government wants to launch this without a public consultation on the definition, or proper engagement with faith leaders,” said one official who has seen the proposals. “It’s never going to work.” New measures to target groups defined as extremist by the government are part of Rishi Sunak’s drive to crack down on Islamist extremists and far-right groups. He warned in a speech outside No 10 on 1 March of streets that had been “hijacked by small groups” and protests that had descended into “intimidation, threats, and planned actions of violence”. Civil liberties groups are concerned it could brand legitimate organisations and individuals as extremists, suppressing freedom of speech. Some Tory MPs also fear that it could be used to ban socially conservative groups – for example, those that oppose same-sex marriage or abortion. “Refusing to engage with groups it disagrees with is becoming a pattern of behaviour from this government,” said Akiko Hart, director of Liberty. “It’s vital those in power do not silence the people set to be most affected by its policies.” The vetting scheme for the new policy has not yet been established. The briefing documents suggest that “trailblazer” departments will pilot the scheme. It is expected that the vetting units will check individuals and groups under new standards, which include demonstrating “any of the behaviours set out in the 2024 definition of extremism”. The documents circulated by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities warn: “There are some risks to this approach, including greater risk of legal challenge if we publish the principles without the due diligence system being operational.” Robin Simcox, the government’s commissioner for countering extremism, suggested in an article in the Telegraph last week that London should no longer be permitted “to be turned into a no-go zone for Jews every weekend”, referring to the regular pro-Palestinian marches. An official at the Board of Deputies of British Jews told the Times that while many British Jews felt unsafe in central London during the marches, he was not “particularly comfortable with the language of ‘no-go zones’.” In 2011, the government’s Prevent strategy defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The government proposed a bill in 2016 to “tackle the menace of extremism”, but it was shelved after the government failed to provide a legally acceptable definition of extremism . Alex Carlile, a crossbench peer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said there was a risk in proposing a new definition. He said: “A good definition would ensure a greater level of consistency in the way in which, for example, the policing of demonstrations takes place. If it is not a good definition, we risk making things worse.” Lord Carlile said he did not consider a new definition was necessary because there were laws already in place to deal with extremist groups, but more guidance for police forces in dealing with extremist groups would be helpful. The initial documents identified eight groups that could be captured by a proposed new definition of extremism, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Palestine Action. The MCB would be captured on “historical” grounds, according to the internal documents, and for refusing to “repudiate or rescind past behaviours”, and for its association with those who have demonstrated extremist behaviours, without providing critical challenge. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more The government has not confirmed whether it will identify specific groups when it launches the new extremism definition. It faces the risk of a legal challenge in banning individuals and organisations from funding and engagement with public bodies, based on a definition that is not enshrined in law. A MCB spokesperson said: “Extremism and terrorism are serious matters that require real leadership and not cynical electioneering. To suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain would fall under arbitrary definitions of extremism is offensive, ludicrous and dangerous. “We are a democratic organisation representing a cross-section of British Muslims. After standing accused of peddling Islamophobia , it is ironic that the governing party should lash out and accuse everyone else but themselves of extremism. We shall be monitoring developments and will seek to reserve our position legally.” Palestine Action said no new definition would deter it from campaigning. A government spokesperson said:“We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Politics The Observer UK security and counter-terrorism Counter-terrorism policy Michael Gove Conservatives Rishi Sunak Islamophobia news Share Reuse this content Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock Michael Gove is set to announce his controversial plan this week, but some argue it will be challenged in the courts. Photograph: Duncan Bryceland/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Revealed: legal fears over Michael Gove’s new definition of ‘extremism’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Revealed: legal fears over Michael Gove’s new definition of ‘extremism’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Revealed: legal fears over Michael Gove’s new definition of ‘extremism’ This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The communities secretary wants ‘trailblazer’ government departments to pilot a scheme to ban individuals and groups deemed extremist from public life The communities secretary wants ‘trailblazer’ government departments to pilot a scheme to ban individuals and groups deemed extremist from public life The communities secretary wants ‘trailblazer’ government departments to pilot a scheme to ban individuals and groups deemed extremist from public life Michael Gove is set to announce a controversial plan this week to ban individuals and groups who “undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy” from public life, despite fears inside government that the scheme is at risk of a legal challenge, leaked documents reveal. Officials working for Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, have drawn up plans for “trailblazer” departments to pilot the scheme, according to documents that have been circulated to the Home Office and Downing Street and seen by the Observer . Organisations and individuals that breach a new official definition of extremism will be excluded from meetings or any engagement with ministers, senior civil servants, government advisory boards and funding. Councils will be expected to follow the government’s lead, cutting any financial ties or support to individuals or groups that have been categorised as extremist. The proposed new definition of extremism – first revealed by the Observer in November – says “core behaviours” that could constitute extremism include attempts to “overturn, exploit or undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy to confer advantages or disadvantages on specific groups” or threatening individual rights or enabling the spread of extremism. In internal briefing papers, Gove’s officials admit there is a risk of a legal challenge. Gove already faces strong opposition to the plans, including from civil liberties groups, officials and some senior Tory MPs. “The government wants to launch this without a public consultation on the definition, or proper engagement with faith leaders,” said one official who has seen the proposals. “It’s never going to work.” New measures to target groups defined as extremist by the government are part of Rishi Sunak’s drive to crack down on Islamist extremists and far-right groups. He warned in a speech outside No 10 on 1 March of streets that had been “hijacked by small groups” and protests that had descended into “intimidation, threats, and planned actions of violence”. Civil liberties groups are concerned it could brand legitimate organisations and individuals as extremists, suppressing freedom of speech. Some Tory MPs also fear that it could be used to ban socially conservative groups – for example, those that oppose same-sex marriage or abortion. “Refusing to engage with groups it disagrees with is becoming a pattern of behaviour from this government,” said Akiko Hart, director of Liberty. “It’s vital those in power do not silence the people set to be most affected by its policies.” The vetting scheme for the new policy has not yet been established. The briefing documents suggest that “trailblazer” departments will pilot the scheme. It is expected that the vetting units will check individuals and groups under new standards, which include demonstrating “any of the behaviours set out in the 2024 definition of extremism”. The documents circulated by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities warn: “There are some risks to this approach, including greater risk of legal challenge if we publish the principles without the due diligence system being operational.” Robin Simcox, the government’s commissioner for countering extremism, suggested in an article in the Telegraph last week that London should no longer be permitted “to be turned into a no-go zone for Jews every weekend”, referring to the regular pro-Palestinian marches. An official at the Board of Deputies of British Jews told the Times that while many British Jews felt unsafe in central London during the marches, he was not “particularly comfortable with the language of ‘no-go zones’.” In 2011, the government’s Prevent strategy defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The government proposed a bill in 2016 to “tackle the menace of extremism”, but it was shelved after the government failed to provide a legally acceptable definition of extremism . Alex Carlile, a crossbench peer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said there was a risk in proposing a new definition. He said: “A good definition would ensure a greater level of consistency in the way in which, for example, the policing of demonstrations takes place. If it is not a good definition, we risk making things worse.” Lord Carlile said he did not consider a new definition was necessary because there were laws already in place to deal with extremist groups, but more guidance for police forces in dealing with extremist groups would be helpful. The initial documents identified eight groups that could be captured by a proposed new definition of extremism, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Palestine Action. The MCB would be captured on “historical” grounds, according to the internal documents, and for refusing to “repudiate or rescind past behaviours”, and for its association with those who have demonstrated extremist behaviours, without providing critical challenge. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more The government has not confirmed whether it will identify specific groups when it launches the new extremism definition. It faces the risk of a legal challenge in banning individuals and organisations from funding and engagement with public bodies, based on a definition that is not enshrined in law. A MCB spokesperson said: “Extremism and terrorism are serious matters that require real leadership and not cynical electioneering. To suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain would fall under arbitrary definitions of extremism is offensive, ludicrous and dangerous. “We are a democratic organisation representing a cross-section of British Muslims. After standing accused of peddling Islamophobia , it is ironic that the governing party should lash out and accuse everyone else but themselves of extremism. We shall be monitoring developments and will seek to reserve our position legally.” Palestine Action said no new definition would deter it from campaigning. A government spokesperson said:“We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Politics The Observer UK security and counter-terrorism Counter-terrorism policy Michael Gove Conservatives Rishi Sunak Islamophobia news Share Reuse this content Michael Gove is set to announce a controversial plan this week to ban individuals and groups who “undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy” from public life, despite fears inside government that the scheme is at risk of a legal challenge, leaked documents reveal. Officials working for Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, have drawn up plans for “trailblazer” departments to pilot the scheme, according to documents that have been circulated to the Home Office and Downing Street and seen by the Observer . Organisations and individuals that breach a new official definition of extremism will be excluded from meetings or any engagement with ministers, senior civil servants, government advisory boards and funding. Councils will be expected to follow the government’s lead, cutting any financial ties or support to individuals or groups that have been categorised as extremist. The proposed new definition of extremism – first revealed by the Observer in November – says “core behaviours” that could constitute extremism include attempts to “overturn, exploit or undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy to confer advantages or disadvantages on specific groups” or threatening individual rights or enabling the spread of extremism. In internal briefing papers, Gove’s officials admit there is a risk of a legal challenge. Gove already faces strong opposition to the plans, including from civil liberties groups, officials and some senior Tory MPs. “The government wants to launch this without a public consultation on the definition, or proper engagement with faith leaders,” said one official who has seen the proposals. “It’s never going to work.” New measures to target groups defined as extremist by the government are part of Rishi Sunak’s drive to crack down on Islamist extremists and far-right groups. He warned in a speech outside No 10 on 1 March of streets that had been “hijacked by small groups” and protests that had descended into “intimidation, threats, and planned actions of violence”. Civil liberties groups are concerned it could brand legitimate organisations and individuals as extremists, suppressing freedom of speech. Some Tory MPs also fear that it could be used to ban socially conservative groups – for example, those that oppose same-sex marriage or abortion. “Refusing to engage with groups it disagrees with is becoming a pattern of behaviour from this government,” said Akiko Hart, director of Liberty. “It’s vital those in power do not silence the people set to be most affected by its policies.” The vetting scheme for the new policy has not yet been established. The briefing documents suggest that “trailblazer” departments will pilot the scheme. It is expected that the vetting units will check individuals and groups under new standards, which include demonstrating “any of the behaviours set out in the 2024 definition of extremism”. The documents circulated by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities warn: “There are some risks to this approach, including greater risk of legal challenge if we publish the principles without the due diligence system being operational.” Robin Simcox, the government’s commissioner for countering extremism, suggested in an article in the Telegraph last week that London should no longer be permitted “to be turned into a no-go zone for Jews every weekend”, referring to the regular pro-Palestinian marches. An official at the Board of Deputies of British Jews told the Times that while many British Jews felt unsafe in central London during the marches, he was not “particularly comfortable with the language of ‘no-go zones’.” In 2011, the government’s Prevent strategy defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The government proposed a bill in 2016 to “tackle the menace of extremism”, but it was shelved after the government failed to provide a legally acceptable definition of extremism . Alex Carlile, a crossbench peer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said there was a risk in proposing a new definition. He said: “A good definition would ensure a greater level of consistency in the way in which, for example, the policing of demonstrations takes place. If it is not a good definition, we risk making things worse.” Lord Carlile said he did not consider a new definition was necessary because there were laws already in place to deal with extremist groups, but more guidance for police forces in dealing with extremist groups would be helpful. The initial documents identified eight groups that could be captured by a proposed new definition of extremism, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Palestine Action. The MCB would be captured on “historical” grounds, according to the internal documents, and for refusing to “repudiate or rescind past behaviours”, and for its association with those who have demonstrated extremist behaviours, without providing critical challenge. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more The government has not confirmed whether it will identify specific groups when it launches the new extremism definition. It faces the risk of a legal challenge in banning individuals and organisations from funding and engagement with public bodies, based on a definition that is not enshrined in law. A MCB spokesperson said: “Extremism and terrorism are serious matters that require real leadership and not cynical electioneering. To suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain would fall under arbitrary definitions of extremism is offensive, ludicrous and dangerous. “We are a democratic organisation representing a cross-section of British Muslims. After standing accused of peddling Islamophobia , it is ironic that the governing party should lash out and accuse everyone else but themselves of extremism. We shall be monitoring developments and will seek to reserve our position legally.” Palestine Action said no new definition would deter it from campaigning. A government spokesperson said:“We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Politics The Observer UK security and counter-terrorism Counter-terrorism policy Michael Gove Conservatives Rishi Sunak Islamophobia news Share Reuse this content Michael Gove is set to announce a controversial plan this week to ban individuals and groups who “undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy” from public life, despite fears inside government that the scheme is at risk of a legal challenge, leaked documents reveal. Officials working for Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, have drawn up plans for “trailblazer” departments to pilot the scheme, according to documents that have been circulated to the Home Office and Downing Street and seen by the Observer . Organisations and individuals that breach a new official definition of extremism will be excluded from meetings or any engagement with ministers, senior civil servants, government advisory boards and funding. Councils will be expected to follow the government’s lead, cutting any financial ties or support to individuals or groups that have been categorised as extremist. The proposed new definition of extremism – first revealed by the Observer in November – says “core behaviours” that could constitute extremism include attempts to “overturn, exploit or undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy to confer advantages or disadvantages on specific groups” or threatening individual rights or enabling the spread of extremism. In internal briefing papers, Gove’s officials admit there is a risk of a legal challenge. Gove already faces strong opposition to the plans, including from civil liberties groups, officials and some senior Tory MPs. “The government wants to launch this without a public consultation on the definition, or proper engagement with faith leaders,” said one official who has seen the proposals. “It’s never going to work.” New measures to target groups defined as extremist by the government are part of Rishi Sunak’s drive to crack down on Islamist extremists and far-right groups. He warned in a speech outside No 10 on 1 March of streets that had been “hijacked by small groups” and protests that had descended into “intimidation, threats, and planned actions of violence”. Civil liberties groups are concerned it could brand legitimate organisations and individuals as extremists, suppressing freedom of speech. Some Tory MPs also fear that it could be used to ban socially conservative groups – for example, those that oppose same-sex marriage or abortion. “Refusing to engage with groups it disagrees with is becoming a pattern of behaviour from this government,” said Akiko Hart, director of Liberty. “It’s vital those in power do not silence the people set to be most affected by its policies.” The vetting scheme for the new policy has not yet been established. The briefing documents suggest that “trailblazer” departments will pilot the scheme. It is expected that the vetting units will check individuals and groups under new standards, which include demonstrating “any of the behaviours set out in the 2024 definition of extremism”. The documents circulated by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities warn: “There are some risks to this approach, including greater risk of legal challenge if we publish the principles without the due diligence system being operational.” Robin Simcox, the government’s commissioner for countering extremism, suggested in an article in the Telegraph last week that London should no longer be permitted “to be turned into a no-go zone for Jews every weekend”, referring to the regular pro-Palestinian marches. An official at the Board of Deputies of British Jews told the Times that while many British Jews felt unsafe in central London during the marches, he was not “particularly comfortable with the language of ‘no-go zones’.” In 2011, the government’s Prevent strategy defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The government proposed a bill in 2016 to “tackle the menace of extremism”, but it was shelved after the government failed to provide a legally acceptable definition of extremism . Alex Carlile, a crossbench peer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said there was a risk in proposing a new definition. He said: “A good definition would ensure a greater level of consistency in the way in which, for example, the policing of demonstrations takes place. If it is not a good definition, we risk making things worse.” Lord Carlile said he did not consider a new definition was necessary because there were laws already in place to deal with extremist groups, but more guidance for police forces in dealing with extremist groups would be helpful. The initial documents identified eight groups that could be captured by a proposed new definition of extremism, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Palestine Action. The MCB would be captured on “historical” grounds, according to the internal documents, and for refusing to “repudiate or rescind past behaviours”, and for its association with those who have demonstrated extremist behaviours, without providing critical challenge. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more The government has not confirmed whether it will identify specific groups when it launches the new extremism definition. It faces the risk of a legal challenge in banning individuals and organisations from funding and engagement with public bodies, based on a definition that is not enshrined in law. A MCB spokesperson said: “Extremism and terrorism are serious matters that require real leadership and not cynical electioneering. To suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain would fall under arbitrary definitions of extremism is offensive, ludicrous and dangerous. “We are a democratic organisation representing a cross-section of British Muslims. After standing accused of peddling Islamophobia , it is ironic that the governing party should lash out and accuse everyone else but themselves of extremism. We shall be monitoring developments and will seek to reserve our position legally.” Palestine Action said no new definition would deter it from campaigning. A government spokesperson said:“We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” Michael Gove is set to announce a controversial plan this week to ban individuals and groups who “undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy” from public life, despite fears inside government that the scheme is at risk of a legal challenge, leaked documents reveal. Officials working for Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, have drawn up plans for “trailblazer” departments to pilot the scheme, according to documents that have been circulated to the Home Office and Downing Street and seen by the Observer . Organisations and individuals that breach a new official definition of extremism will be excluded from meetings or any engagement with ministers, senior civil servants, government advisory boards and funding. Councils will be expected to follow the government’s lead, cutting any financial ties or support to individuals or groups that have been categorised as extremist. The proposed new definition of extremism – first revealed by the Observer in November – says “core behaviours” that could constitute extremism include attempts to “overturn, exploit or undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy to confer advantages or disadvantages on specific groups” or threatening individual rights or enabling the spread of extremism. In internal briefing papers, Gove’s officials admit there is a risk of a legal challenge. Gove already faces strong opposition to the plans, including from civil liberties groups, officials and some senior Tory MPs. “The government wants to launch this without a public consultation on the definition, or proper engagement with faith leaders,” said one official who has seen the proposals. “It’s never going to work.” New measures to target groups defined as extremist by the government are part of Rishi Sunak’s drive to crack down on Islamist extremists and far-right groups. He warned in a speech outside No 10 on 1 March of streets that had been “hijacked by small groups” and protests that had descended into “intimidation, threats, and planned actions of violence”. Civil liberties groups are concerned it could brand legitimate organisations and individuals as extremists, suppressing freedom of speech. Some Tory MPs also fear that it could be used to ban socially conservative groups – for example, those that oppose same-sex marriage or abortion. “Refusing to engage with groups it disagrees with is becoming a pattern of behaviour from this government,” said Akiko Hart, director of Liberty. “It’s vital those in power do not silence the people set to be most affected by its policies.” The vetting scheme for the new policy has not yet been established. The briefing documents suggest that “trailblazer” departments will pilot the scheme. It is expected that the vetting units will check individuals and groups under new standards, which include demonstrating “any of the behaviours set out in the 2024 definition of extremism”. The documents circulated by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities warn: “There are some risks to this approach, including greater risk of legal challenge if we publish the principles without the due diligence system being operational.” Robin Simcox, the government’s commissioner for countering extremism, suggested in an article in the Telegraph last week that London should no longer be permitted “to be turned into a no-go zone for Jews every weekend”, referring to the regular pro-Palestinian marches. An official at the Board of Deputies of British Jews told the Times that while many British Jews felt unsafe in central London during the marches, he was not “particularly comfortable with the language of ‘no-go zones’.” In 2011, the government’s Prevent strategy defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The government proposed a bill in 2016 to “tackle the menace of extremism”, but it was shelved after the government failed to provide a legally acceptable definition of extremism . Alex Carlile, a crossbench peer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said there was a risk in proposing a new definition. He said: “A good definition would ensure a greater level of consistency in the way in which, for example, the policing of demonstrations takes place. If it is not a good definition, we risk making things worse.” Lord Carlile said he did not consider a new definition was necessary because there were laws already in place to deal with extremist groups, but more guidance for police forces in dealing with extremist groups would be helpful. The initial documents identified eight groups that could be captured by a proposed new definition of extremism, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Palestine Action. The MCB would be captured on “historical” grounds, according to the internal documents, and for refusing to “repudiate or rescind past behaviours”, and for its association with those who have demonstrated extremist behaviours, without providing critical challenge. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more The government has not confirmed whether it will identify specific groups when it launches the new extremism definition. It faces the risk of a legal challenge in banning individuals and organisations from funding and engagement with public bodies, based on a definition that is not enshrined in law. A MCB spokesperson said: “Extremism and terrorism are serious matters that require real leadership and not cynical electioneering. To suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain would fall under arbitrary definitions of extremism is offensive, ludicrous and dangerous. “We are a democratic organisation representing a cross-section of British Muslims. After standing accused of peddling Islamophobia , it is ironic that the governing party should lash out and accuse everyone else but themselves of extremism. We shall be monitoring developments and will seek to reserve our position legally.” Palestine Action said no new definition would deter it from campaigning. A government spokesperson said:“We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” Michael Gove is set to announce a controversial plan this week to ban individuals and groups who “undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy” from public life, despite fears inside government that the scheme is at risk of a legal challenge, leaked documents reveal. Officials working for Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, have drawn up plans for “trailblazer” departments to pilot the scheme, according to documents that have been circulated to the Home Office and Downing Street and seen by the Observer . Organisations and individuals that breach a new official definition of extremism will be excluded from meetings or any engagement with ministers, senior civil servants, government advisory boards and funding. Councils will be expected to follow the government’s lead, cutting any financial ties or support to individuals or groups that have been categorised as extremist. The proposed new definition of extremism – first revealed by the Observer in November – says “core behaviours” that could constitute extremism include attempts to “overturn, exploit or undermine the UK’s system of liberal democracy to confer advantages or disadvantages on specific groups” or threatening individual rights or enabling the spread of extremism. In internal briefing papers, Gove’s officials admit there is a risk of a legal challenge. Gove already faces strong opposition to the plans, including from civil liberties groups, officials and some senior Tory MPs. “The government wants to launch this without a public consultation on the definition, or proper engagement with faith leaders,” said one official who has seen the proposals. “It’s never going to work.” New measures to target groups defined as extremist by the government are part of Rishi Sunak’s drive to crack down on Islamist extremists and far-right groups. He warned in a speech outside No 10 on 1 March of streets that had been “hijacked by small groups” and protests that had descended into “intimidation, threats, and planned actions of violence”. Civil liberties groups are concerned it could brand legitimate organisations and individuals as extremists, suppressing freedom of speech. Some Tory MPs also fear that it could be used to ban socially conservative groups – for example, those that oppose same-sex marriage or abortion. “Refusing to engage with groups it disagrees with is becoming a pattern of behaviour from this government,” said Akiko Hart, director of Liberty. “It’s vital those in power do not silence the people set to be most affected by its policies.” The vetting scheme for the new policy has not yet been established. The briefing documents suggest that “trailblazer” departments will pilot the scheme. It is expected that the vetting units will check individuals and groups under new standards, which include demonstrating “any of the behaviours set out in the 2024 definition of extremism”. The documents circulated by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities warn: “There are some risks to this approach, including greater risk of legal challenge if we publish the principles without the due diligence system being operational.” Robin Simcox, the government’s commissioner for countering extremism, suggested in an article in the Telegraph last week that London should no longer be permitted “to be turned into a no-go zone for Jews every weekend”, referring to the regular pro-Palestinian marches. An official at the Board of Deputies of British Jews told the Times that while many British Jews felt unsafe in central London during the marches, he was not “particularly comfortable with the language of ‘no-go zones’.” In 2011, the government’s Prevent strategy defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. The government proposed a bill in 2016 to “tackle the menace of extremism”, but it was shelved after the government failed to provide a legally acceptable definition of extremism . Alex Carlile, a crossbench peer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said there was a risk in proposing a new definition. He said: “A good definition would ensure a greater level of consistency in the way in which, for example, the policing of demonstrations takes place. If it is not a good definition, we risk making things worse.” Lord Carlile said he did not consider a new definition was necessary because there were laws already in place to deal with extremist groups, but more guidance for police forces in dealing with extremist groups would be helpful. The initial documents identified eight groups that could be captured by a proposed new definition of extremism, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Palestine Action. The MCB would be captured on “historical” grounds, according to the internal documents, and for refusing to “repudiate or rescind past behaviours”, and for its association with those who have demonstrated extremist behaviours, without providing critical challenge. No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden extremism definition Read more No 10 faces Tory backlash over plans to broaden
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Fears for future of Gaelic language as community workers’ jobs under threat
The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy View image in fullscreen The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Fears for future of Gaelic language as community workers’ jobs under threat This article is more than 1 year old Up to 27 Gaelic development officers based on Hebridean islands and in rural counties and cities to be laid off Gaelic-language campaigners and MSPs have protested furiously about plans to axe a network of Gaelic community workers, raising fresh fears about the survival of the language. Up to 27 Gaelic development workers based in Hebridean islands, rural counties and Scotland’s major cities are being laid off after the Scottish government cut funding to Bòrd na Gàidhlig (BnG), the body charged with protecting and reviving Gaelic. The job losses have alarmed activists, who said these development workers were essential to their efforts to promote and reinvigorate the language and Gaelic communities, after decades of decline. Community leaders on Tiree, an island in the southern Hebrides where Gaelic was once the primary language, said losing their two development officers would have “significant negative implications” for the island. “The decision is shortsighted and deeply damaging to island communities,” said Tiree community council and Tiree community development trust in a joint letter. Wilson McLeod, an emeritus professor of Gaelic at Edinburgh University, said the city’s part-time officer would be laid off in September, damaging plans for a new Gaelic language hub for Edinburgh. “People are really fired up,” he said of the cuts. One senior source said many felt “betrayed”, partly because the cuts had been imposed by Scottish National party ministers, who many assumed would be particularly attuned to the cultural and political case for protecting Gaelic. Scottish ministers argue that they are championing Gaelic. Holyrood is weighing up a Scottish languages bill to provide legal recognition to Gaelic and Scots, to boost Gaelic education, and establish an official Gaelic cultural region across the Highlands and western islands. Yet Bòrd na Gàidhlig and MG Alba, a government-funded agency for Gaelic-language television, film and radio, have warned that they have shouldered consistent cuts in real-terms funding, putting their services under severe strain. View image in fullscreen Leaders on Tiree said preservation of the Gaelic language was vital for their cultural heritage and for the ‘vibrancy and future’ of their community. Photograph: Stephen Finn/Alamy The University of Aberdeen faced strike action by lecturers on Tuesday after heavily cutting Gaelic and modern languages teaching following a slump in student numbers. The strike was called off last week after two lecturers quit and a third was promoted, leading the university to lift the threat of compulsory redundancies. Ministers have defended the budget for Bòrd na Gàidhlig by arguing that the development officers were paid for by top-up funds. Its core funding, the government said, had remained the same “despite the extraordinary financial challenges facing the Scottish government”. Bòrd na Gàidhlig challenged that assertion in a strongly worded submission on the bill’s financial provisions earlier this month. It said it had £5m funding in 2007, and 17 years later its budget for 2024-25 stood at £5.125m. If its grant had kept pace with inflation, it should be receiving between £8.5m and £10m a year. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Every year where a standstill budget is delivered reflects a real-terms cut in available resources, the impact of which is felt across Gaelic-speaking communities,” it said. Its development budgets were “already significantly oversubscribed with known demand exceeding the budget available”. Tiree’s leaders agreed. “The reduction in funding for Bòrd na Gàidhlig exacerbates an already dire situation for the Gaelic language, whose preservation is vital not only to our cultural heritage but also to the vibrancy and future of our community,” they said. Kate Forbes, the Gaelic-speaking MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch and a former Scottish finance secretary, said she had been “inundated” with complaints. “The Scottish government and the rest of Scotland need to do far more to save the language,” she said. She said part of the problem lay with Gaelic sitting in the government’s education portfolio rather than having the wider status it needed. A working group she set up as a minister called for Gaelic policies to be integrated into housing and economic policy; community development should be one of Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s core duties and funded as such, she said. A government spokesperson said it had written to Bòrd na Gàidhlig asking it to “bring forward alternative proposals” to fund the threatened posts. “We recognise the significant part Gaelic plays in Scotland’s culture and we want to support the language to thrive and grow,” he said. Explore more on these topics Scotland Scottish National party (SNP) Scottish politics Languages University of Edinburgh University of Aberdeen Edinburgh news Share Reuse this content The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy View image in fullscreen The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Fears for future of Gaelic language as community workers’ jobs under threat This article is more than 1 year old Up to 27 Gaelic development officers based on Hebridean islands and in rural counties and cities to be laid off Gaelic-language campaigners and MSPs have protested furiously about plans to axe a network of Gaelic community workers, raising fresh fears about the survival of the language. Up to 27 Gaelic development workers based in Hebridean islands, rural counties and Scotland’s major cities are being laid off after the Scottish government cut funding to Bòrd na Gàidhlig (BnG), the body charged with protecting and reviving Gaelic. The job losses have alarmed activists, who said these development workers were essential to their efforts to promote and reinvigorate the language and Gaelic communities, after decades of decline. Community leaders on Tiree, an island in the southern Hebrides where Gaelic was once the primary language, said losing their two development officers would have “significant negative implications” for the island. “The decision is shortsighted and deeply damaging to island communities,” said Tiree community council and Tiree community development trust in a joint letter. Wilson McLeod, an emeritus professor of Gaelic at Edinburgh University, said the city’s part-time officer would be laid off in September, damaging plans for a new Gaelic language hub for Edinburgh. “People are really fired up,” he said of the cuts. One senior source said many felt “betrayed”, partly because the cuts had been imposed by Scottish National party ministers, who many assumed would be particularly attuned to the cultural and political case for protecting Gaelic. Scottish ministers argue that they are championing Gaelic. Holyrood is weighing up a Scottish languages bill to provide legal recognition to Gaelic and Scots, to boost Gaelic education, and establish an official Gaelic cultural region across the Highlands and western islands. Yet Bòrd na Gàidhlig and MG Alba, a government-funded agency for Gaelic-language television, film and radio, have warned that they have shouldered consistent cuts in real-terms funding, putting their services under severe strain. View image in fullscreen Leaders on Tiree said preservation of the Gaelic language was vital for their cultural heritage and for the ‘vibrancy and future’ of their community. Photograph: Stephen Finn/Alamy The University of Aberdeen faced strike action by lecturers on Tuesday after heavily cutting Gaelic and modern languages teaching following a slump in student numbers. The strike was called off last week after two lecturers quit and a third was promoted, leading the university to lift the threat of compulsory redundancies. Ministers have defended the budget for Bòrd na Gàidhlig by arguing that the development officers were paid for by top-up funds. Its core funding, the government said, had remained the same “despite the extraordinary financial challenges facing the Scottish government”. Bòrd na Gàidhlig challenged that assertion in a strongly worded submission on the bill’s financial provisions earlier this month. It said it had £5m funding in 2007, and 17 years later its budget for 2024-25 stood at £5.125m. If its grant had kept pace with inflation, it should be receiving between £8.5m and £10m a year. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Every year where a standstill budget is delivered reflects a real-terms cut in available resources, the impact of which is felt across Gaelic-speaking communities,” it said. Its development budgets were “already significantly oversubscribed with known demand exceeding the budget available”. Tiree’s leaders agreed. “The reduction in funding for Bòrd na Gàidhlig exacerbates an already dire situation for the Gaelic language, whose preservation is vital not only to our cultural heritage but also to the vibrancy and future of our community,” they said. Kate Forbes, the Gaelic-speaking MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch and a former Scottish finance secretary, said she had been “inundated” with complaints. “The Scottish government and the rest of Scotland need to do far more to save the language,” she said. She said part of the problem lay with Gaelic sitting in the government’s education portfolio rather than having the wider status it needed. A working group she set up as a minister called for Gaelic policies to be integrated into housing and economic policy; community development should be one of Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s core duties and funded as such, she said. A government spokesperson said it had written to Bòrd na Gàidhlig asking it to “bring forward alternative proposals” to fund the threatened posts. “We recognise the significant part Gaelic plays in Scotland’s culture and we want to support the language to thrive and grow,” he said. Explore more on these topics Scotland Scottish National party (SNP) Scottish politics Languages University of Edinburgh University of Aberdeen Edinburgh news Share Reuse this content The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy View image in fullscreen The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy View image in fullscreen The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy View image in fullscreen The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy View image in fullscreen The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy The coast of Tiree, an island in the Hebrides, where Gaelic was once the primary language. Photograph: PictureScotland/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Fears for future of Gaelic language as community workers’ jobs under threat This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Fears for future of Gaelic language as community workers’ jobs under threat This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Fears for future of Gaelic language as community workers’ jobs under threat This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Up to 27 Gaelic development officers based on Hebridean islands and in rural counties and cities to be laid off Up to 27 Gaelic development officers based on Hebridean islands and in rural counties and cities to be laid off Up to 27 Gaelic development officers based on Hebridean islands and in rural counties and cities to be laid off Gaelic-language campaigners and MSPs have protested furiously about plans to axe a network of Gaelic community workers, raising fresh fears about the survival of the language. Up to 27 Gaelic development workers based in Hebridean islands, rural counties and Scotland’s major cities are being laid off after the Scottish government cut funding to Bòrd na Gàidhlig (BnG), the body charged with protecting and reviving Gaelic. The job losses have alarmed activists, who said these development workers were essential to their efforts to promote and reinvigorate the language and Gaelic communities, after decades of decline. Community leaders on Tiree, an island in the southern Hebrides where Gaelic was once the primary language, said losing their two development officers would have “significant negative implications” for the island. “The decision is shortsighted and deeply damaging to island communities,” said Tiree community council and Tiree community development trust in a joint letter. Wilson McLeod, an emeritus professor of Gaelic at Edinburgh University, said the city’s part-time officer would be laid off in September, damaging plans for a new Gaelic language hub for Edinburgh. “People are really fired up,” he said of the cuts. One senior source said many felt “betrayed”, partly because the cuts had been imposed by Scottish National party ministers, who many assumed would be particularly attuned to the cultural and political case for protecting Gaelic. Scottish ministers argue that they are championing Gaelic. Holyrood is weighing up a Scottish languages bill to provide legal recognition to Gaelic and Scots, to boost Gaelic education, and establish an official Gaelic cultural region across the Highlands and western islands. Yet Bòrd na Gàidhlig and MG Alba, a government-funded agency for Gaelic-language television, film and radio, have warned that they have shouldered consistent cuts in real-terms funding, putting their services under severe strain. View image in fullscreen Leaders on Tiree said preservation of the Gaelic language was vital for their cultural heritage and for the ‘vibrancy and future’ of their community. Photograph: Stephen Finn/Alamy The University of Aberdeen faced strike action by lecturers on Tuesday after heavily cutting Gaelic and modern languages teaching following a slump in student numbers. The strike was called off last week after two lecturers quit and a third was promoted, leading the university to lift the threat of compulsory redundancies. Ministers have defended the budget for Bòrd na Gàidhlig by arguing that the development officers were paid for by top-up funds. Its core funding, the government said, had remained the same “despite the extraordinary financial challenges facing the Scottish government”. Bòrd na Gàidhlig challenged that assertion in a strongly worded submission on the bill’s financial provisions earlier this month. It said it had £5m funding in 2007, and 17 years later its budget for 2024-25 stood at £5.125m. If its grant had kept pace with inflation, it should be receiving between £8.5m and £10m a year. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Every year where a standstill budget is delivered reflects a real-terms cut in available resources, the impact of which is felt across Gaelic-speaking communities,” it said. Its development budgets were “already significantly oversubscribed with known demand exceeding the budget available”. Tiree’s leaders agreed. “The reduction in funding for Bòrd na Gàidhlig exacerbates an already dire situation for the Gaelic language, whose preservation is vital not only to our cultural heritage but also to the vibrancy and future of our community,” they said. Kate Forbes, the Gaelic-speaking MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch and a former Scottish finance secretary, said she had been “inundated” with complaints. “The Scottish government and the rest of Scotland need to do far more to save the language,” she said. She said part of the problem lay with Gaelic sitting in the government’s education portfolio rather than having the wider status it needed. A working group she set up as a minister called for Gaelic policies to be integrated into housing and economic policy; community development should be one of Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s core duties and funded as such, she said. A government spokesperson said it had written to Bòrd na Gàidhlig asking it to “bring forward alternative proposals” to fund the threatened posts. “We recognise the significant part Gaelic plays in Scotland’s culture and we want to support the language to thrive and grow,” he said. Explore more on these topics Scotland Scottish National party (SNP) Scottish politics Languages University of Edinburgh University of Aberdeen Edinburgh news Share Reuse this content Gaelic-language campaigners and MSPs have protested furiously about plans to axe a network of Gaelic community workers, raising fresh fears about the survival of the language. Up to 27 Gaelic development workers based in Hebridean islands, rural counties and Scotland’s major cities are being laid off after the Scottish government cut funding to Bòrd na Gàidhlig (BnG), the body charged with protecting and reviving Gaelic. The job losses have alarmed activists, who said these development workers were essential to their efforts to promote and reinvigorate the language and Gaelic communities, after decades of decline. Community leaders on Tiree, an island in the southern Hebrides where Gaelic was once the primary language, said losing their two development officers would have “significant negative implications” for the island. “The decision is shortsighted and deeply damaging to island communities,” said Tiree community council and Tiree community development trust in a joint letter. Wilson McLeod, an emeritus professor of Gaelic at Edinburgh University, said the city’s part-time officer would be laid off in September, damaging plans for a new Gaelic language hub for Edinburgh. “People are really fired up,” he said of the cuts. One senior source said many felt “betrayed”, partly because the cuts had been imposed by Scottish National party ministers, who many assumed would be particularly attuned to the cultural and political case for protecting Gaelic. Scottish ministers argue that they are championing Gaelic. Holyrood is weighing up a Scottish languages bill to provide legal recognition to Gaelic and Scots, to boost Gaelic education, and establish an official Gaelic cultural region across the Highlands and western islands. Yet Bòrd na Gàidhlig and MG Alba, a government-funded agency for Gaelic-language television, film and radio, have warned that they have shouldered consistent cuts in real-terms funding, putting their services under severe strain. View image in fullscreen Leaders on Tiree said preservation of the Gaelic language was vital for their cultural heritage and for the ‘vibrancy and future’ of their community. Photograph: Stephen Finn/Alamy The University of Aberdeen faced strike action by lecturers on Tuesday after heavily cutting Gaelic and modern languages teaching following a slump in student numbers. The strike was called off last week after two lecturers quit and a third was promoted, leading the university to lift the threat of compulsory redundancies. Ministers have defended the budget for Bòrd na Gàidhlig by arguing that the development officers were paid for by top-up funds. Its core funding, the government said, had remained the same “despite the extraordinary financial challenges facing the Scottish government”. Bòrd na Gàidhlig challenged that assertion in a strongly worded submission on the bill’s financial provisions earlier this month. It said it had £5m funding in 2007, and 17 years later its budget for 2024-25 stood at £5.125m. If its grant had kept pace with inflation, it should be receiving between £8.5m and £10m a year. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Every year where a standstill budget is delivered reflects a real-terms cut in available resources, the impact of which is felt across Gaelic-speaking communities,” it said. Its development budgets were “already significantly oversubscribed with known demand exceeding the budget available”. Tiree’s leaders agreed. “The reduction in funding for Bòrd na Gàidhlig exacerbates an already dire situation for the Gaelic language, whose preservation is vital not only to our cultural heritage but also to the vibrancy and future of our community,” they said. Kate Forbes, the Gaelic-speaking MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch and a former Scottish finance secretary, said she had been “inundated” with complaints. “The Scottish government and the rest of Scotland need to do far more to save the language,” she said. She said part of the problem lay with Gaelic sitting in the government’s education portfolio rather than having the wider status it needed. A working group she set up as a minister called for Gaelic policies to be integrated into housing and economic policy; community development should be one of Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s core duties and funded as such, she said. A government spokesperson said it had written to Bòrd na Gàidhlig asking it to “bring forward alternative proposals” to fund the threatened posts. “We recognise the significant part Gaelic plays in Scotland’s culture and we want to support the language to thrive and grow,” he said. Explore more on these topics Scotland Scottish National party (SNP) Scottish politics Languages University of Edinburgh University of Aberdeen Edinburgh news Share Reuse this content Gaelic-language campaigners and MSPs have protested furiously about plans to axe a network of Gaelic community workers, raising fresh fears about the survival of the language. Up to 27 Gaelic development workers based in Hebridean islands, rural counties and Scotland’s major cities are being laid off after the Scottish government cut funding to Bòrd na Gàidhlig (BnG), the body charged with protecting and reviving Gaelic. The job losses have alarmed activists, who said these development workers were essential to their efforts to promote and reinvigorate the language and Gaelic communities, after decades of decline. Community leaders on Tiree, an island in the southern Hebrides where Gaelic was once the primary language, said losing their two development officers would have “significant negative implications” for the island. “The decision is shortsighted and deeply damaging to island communities,” said Tiree community council and Tiree community development trust in a joint letter. Wilson McLeod, an emeritus professor of Gaelic at Edinburgh University, said the city’s part-time officer would be laid off in September, damaging plans for a new Gaelic language hub for Edinburgh. “People are really fired up,” he said of the cuts. One senior source said many felt “betrayed”, partly because the cuts had been imposed by Scottish National party ministers, who many assumed would be particularly attuned to the cultural and political case for protecting Gaelic. Scottish ministers argue that they are championing Gaelic. Holyrood is weighing up a Scottish languages bill to provide legal recognition to Gaelic and Scots, to boost Gaelic education, and establish an official Gaelic cultural region across the Highlands and western islands. Yet Bòrd na Gàidhlig and MG Alba, a government-funded agency for Gaelic-language television, film and radio, have warned that they have shouldered consistent cuts in real-terms funding, putting their services under severe strain. View image in fullscreen Leaders on Tiree said preservation of the Gaelic language was vital for their cultural heritage and for the ‘vibrancy and future’ of their community. Photograph: Stephen Finn/Alamy The University of Aberdeen faced strike action by lecturers on Tuesday after heavily cutting Gaelic and modern languages teaching following a slump in student numbers. The strike was called off last week after two lecturers quit and a third was promoted, leading the university to lift the threat of compulsory redundancies. Ministers have defended the budget for Bòrd na Gàidhlig by arguing that the development officers were paid for by top-up funds. Its core funding, the government said, had remained the same “despite the extraordinary financial challenges facing the Scottish government”. Bòrd na Gàidhlig challenged that assertion in a strongly worded submission on the bill’s financial provisions earlier this month. It said it had £5m funding in 2007, and 17 years later its budget for 2024-25 stood at £5.125m. If its grant had kept pace with inflation, it should be receiving between £8.5m and £10m a year. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Every year where a standstill budget is delivered reflects a real-terms cut in available resources, the impact of which is felt across Gaelic-speaking communities,” it said. Its development budgets were “already significantly oversubscribed with known demand exceeding the budget available”. Tiree’s leaders agreed. “The reduction in funding for Bòrd na Gàidhlig exacerbates an already dire situation for the Gaelic language, whose preservation is vital not only to our cultural heritage but also to the vibrancy and future of our community,” they said. Kate Forbes, the Gaelic-speaking MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch and a former Scottish finance secretary, said she had been “inundated” with complaints. “The Scottish government and the rest of Scotland need to do far more to save the language,” she said. She said part of the problem lay with Gaelic sitting in the government’s education portfolio rather than having the wider status it needed. A working group she set up as a minister called for Gaelic policies to be integrated into housing and economic policy; community development should be one of Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s core duties and funded as such, she said. A government spokesperson said it had written to Bòrd na Gàidhlig asking it to “bring forward alternative proposals” to fund the threatened posts. “We recognise the significant part Gaelic plays in Scotland’s culture and we want to support the language to thrive and grow,” he said. Gaelic-language campaigners and MSPs have protested furiously about plans to axe a network of Gaelic community workers, raising fresh fears about the survival of the language. Up to 27 Gaelic development workers based in Hebridean islands, rural counties and Scotland’s major cities are being laid off after the Scottish government cut funding to Bòrd na Gàidhlig (BnG), the body charged with protecting and reviving Gaelic. The job losses have alarmed activists, who said these development workers were essential to their efforts to promote and reinvigorate the language and Gaelic communities, after decades of decline. Community leaders on Tiree, an island in the southern Hebrides where Gaelic was once the primary language, said losing their two development officers would have “significant negative implications” for the island. “The decision is shortsighted and deeply damaging to island communities,” said Tiree community council and Tiree community development trust in a joint letter. Wilson McLeod, an emeritus professor of Gaelic at Edinburgh University, said the city’s part-time officer would be laid off in September, damaging plans for a new Gaelic language hub for Edinburgh. “People are really fired up,” he said of the cuts. One senior source said many felt “betrayed”, partly because the cuts had been imposed by Scottish National party ministers, who many assumed would be particularly attuned to the cultural and political case for protecting Gaelic. Scottish ministers argue that they are championing Gaelic. Holyrood is weighing up a Scottish languages bill to provide legal recognition to Gaelic and Scots, to boost Gaelic education, and establish an official Gaelic cultural region across the Highlands and western islands. Yet Bòrd na Gàidhlig and MG Alba, a government-funded agency for Gaelic-language television, film and radio, have warned that they have shouldered consistent cuts in real-terms funding, putting their services under severe strain. View image in fullscreen Leaders on Tiree said preservation of the Gaelic language was vital for their cultural heritage and for the ‘vibrancy and future’ of their community. Photograph: Stephen Finn/Alamy The University of Aberdeen faced strike action by lecturers on Tuesday after heavily cutting Gaelic and modern languages teaching following a slump in student numbers. The strike was called off last week after two lecturers quit and a third was promoted, leading the university to lift the threat of compulsory redundancies. Ministers have defended the budget for Bòrd na Gàidhlig by arguing that the development officers were paid for by top-up funds. Its core funding, the government said, had remained the same “despite the extraordinary financial challenges facing the Scottish government”. Bòrd na Gàidhlig challenged that assertion in a strongly worded submission on the bill’s financial provisions earlier this month. It said it had £5m funding in 2007, and 17 years later its budget for 2024-25 stood at £5.125m. If its grant had kept pace with inflation, it should be receiving between £8.5m and £10m a year. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Every year where a standstill budget is delivered reflects a real-terms cut in available resources, the impact of which is felt across Gaelic-speaking communities,” it said. Its development budgets were “already significantly oversubscribed with known demand exceeding the budget available”. Tiree’s leaders agreed. “The reduction in funding for Bòrd na Gàidhlig exacerbates an already dire situation for the Gaelic language, whose preservation is vital not only to our cultural heritage but also to the vibrancy and future of our community,” they said. Kate Forbes, the Gaelic-speaking MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch and a former Scottish finance secretary, said she had been “inundated” with complaints. “The Scottish government and the rest of Scotland need to do far more to save the language,” she said. She said part of the problem lay with Gaelic sitting in the government’s education portfolio rather than having the wider status it needed. A working group she set up as a minister called for Gaelic policies to be integrated into housing and economic policy; community development should be one of Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s core duties and funded as such, she said. A government spokesperson said it had written to Bòrd na Gàidhlig asking it to “bring forward alternative proposals” to fund the threatened posts. “We recognise the significant part Gaelic plays in Scotland’s culture and we want to support the language to thrive and grow,” he said. Gaelic-language campaigners and MSPs have protested furiously about plans to axe a network of Gaelic community workers, raising fresh fears about the survival of the language. Up to 27 Gaelic development workers based in Hebridean islands, rural counties and Scotland’s major cities are being laid off after the Scottish government cut funding to Bòrd na Gàidhlig (BnG), the body charged with protecting and reviving Gaelic. The job losses have alarmed activists, who said these development workers were essential to their efforts to promote and reinvigorate the language and Gaelic communities, after decades of decline. Community leaders on Tiree, an island in the southern Hebrides where Gaelic was once the primary language, said losing their two development officers would have “significant negative implications” for the island. “The decision is shortsighted and deeply damaging to island communities,” said Tiree community council and Tiree community development trust in a joint letter. Wilson McLeod, an emeritus professor of Gaelic at Edinburgh University, said the city’s part-time officer would be laid off in September, damaging plans for a new Gaelic language hub for Edinburgh. “People are really fired up,” he said of the cuts. One senior source said many felt “betrayed”, partly because the cuts had been imposed by Scottish National party ministers, who many assumed would be particularly attuned to the cultural and political case for protecting Gaelic. Scottish ministers argue that they are championing Gaelic. Holyrood is weighing up a Scottish languages bill to provide legal recognition to Gaelic and Scots, to boost Gaelic education, and establish an official Gaelic cultural region across the Highlands and western islands. Yet Bòrd na Gàidhlig and MG Alba, a government-funded agency for Gaelic-language television, film and radio, have warned that they have shouldered consistent cuts in real-terms funding, putting their services under severe strain. The University of Aberdeen faced strike action by lecturers on Tuesday after heavily cutting Gaelic and modern languages teaching following a slump in student numbers. The strike was called off last week after two lecturers quit and a third was promoted, leading the university to lift the threat of compulsory redundancies. Ministers have defended the budget for Bòrd na Gàidhlig by arguing that the development officers were paid for by top-up funds. Its core funding, the government said, had remained the same “despite the extraordinary financial challenges facing the Scottish government”. Bòrd na Gàidhlig challenged that assertion in a strongly worded submission on the bill’s financial provisions earlier this month. It said it had £5m funding in 2007, and 17 years later its budget for 2024-25 stood at £5.125m. If its grant had kept pace with inflation, it should be receiving between £8.5m and £10m a year. “Every year where a standstill budget is delivered reflects a real-terms cut in available resources, the impact of which is felt across Gaelic-speaking communities,” it said. Its development budgets were “already significantly oversubscribed with known demand exceeding the budget available”. Tiree’s leaders agreed. “The reduction in funding for Bòrd na Gàidhlig exacerbates an already dire situation for the Gaelic language, whose preservation is vital not only to our cultural heritage but also to the vibrancy and future of our community,” they said. Kate Forbes, the Gaelic-speaking MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch and a former Scottish finance secretary, said she had been “inundated” with complaints. “The Scottish government and the rest of Scotland need to do far more to save the language,” she said. She said part of the problem lay with Gaelic sitting in the government’s education portfolio rather than having the wider status it needed. A working group she set up as a minister called for Gaelic policies to be integrated into housing and economic policy; community development should be one of Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s core duties and funded as such, she said. A government spokesperson said it had written to Bòrd na Gàidhlig asking it to “bring forward alternative proposals” to fund the threatened posts. “We recognise the significant part Gaelic plays in Scotland’s culture and we want to support the language to thrive and grow,” he said. Explore more on these topics Scotland Scottish National party (SNP) Scottish politics Languages University of Edinburgh University of Aberdeen Edinburgh news Share Reuse this content Scotland Scottish National party (SNP) Scottish politics Languages University of Edinburgh University of Aberdeen Edinburgh news |
Wolves are thriving again across western Europe. Is it time to bring them back to the UK?
Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy View image in fullscreen Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Wolves are thriving again across western Europe. Is it time to bring them back to the UK? This article is more than 1 year old Former sheep farmer Derek Gow is on a mission to rewild Britain. Having switched sides from team sheep, he wants to reintroduce its mortal enemy… A cross the River Wolf and along several miles of muddy Devon lanes lies Derek Gow’s lair. Inside a crepuscular barn filled with a pungent aroma, an imposing, bearded Scot sits surrounded by his collection of animal skulls, stuffed beavers, taxidermied badgers and birds of prey. A distinctive stench wafts from the head of an ibex mounted on the wall. The barn is badged as an education centre but it would terrify some visitors. This gothic scene reaches its climax when – bang! – a shot is fired nearby. Gow looks relaxed. “She’s not shooting anything,” he says of his neighbouring farmer. “It’s a gas gun, trying to scare a bunch of complacent geese.” Gow, a former sheep farmer, has become one of the most remarkable figures in British conservation. After working in various zoos, he began captive-breeding water voles 25 years ago. Since then, working with conservation groups and landowners, he’s repopulated wetlands with 25,000 of the highly endangered mammal. The “vole room” on his rewilded farm still produces 1,000 each year. Alongside voles, he started breeding beavers for fenced rewilding projects across Britain. A number escaped and now form a burgeoning population living freely along the 60-mile River Tamar between Devon and Cornwall. Over the past 15 years, other beavers mysteriously materialised on river systems across the country; Gow denies it was his work but beavers are officially recognised as a native species once again. After writing a popular book about bringing back the beaver, this former lover of sheep is following it with a book about the sheep’s mortal enemy, and the most controversial candidate for returning to Britain: the wolf. At rewilding conferences, meek conservationists will say to Gow, “We’re not here to talk about the wolf.” “Why?” he asks now. “The opponents of rewilding hate you anyway. You’re never going to convince these people.” View image in fullscreen The wolfman of Devon: Derek Gow in his barn, surrounded by his extensive collection of skulls and stuffed animals. Photograph: Leon Foggitt/The Observer He wants to start a conversation about bringing back the wolf, and not just because this much-traduced carnivore has loped back into western Europe and is thriving in densely populated countries including the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany which, like us, are burdened by a long history of beastly folklore. “The big predators were the things we went for first,” he says. “It’s not very mature to view every animal from the badger up as a major threat, and the only solution is to destroy them. We can never come to terms with nature, with other life on this planet, if we can’t come to terms with big predators.” Before we discuss Gow’s hunt for the wolf in British history, where he knits together myths, dusty historical records and modern ecology to show that wolves are more deeply embedded in our landscape than we imagine, he takes me on a tour of the 400-acre farm he is returning to nature. We speed off in Gow’s little all-terrain vehicle, slaloming through the sodden fields, wheels spinning, mud splattering, no seat belts, up steep-sided hills that until a few years ago were a familiar English patchwork of green fields. Gow is creating a new kind of idyll. He identifies his acres by field hue. The emerald pastures straight from a picture book of the countryside are the heavily fertilised “improved” fields of his neighbours. These look neat but are mostly lifeless, usually containing a single species of grass upon which cows or sheep feed. The yellow, raggedy fields are his. They appear scruffy at this time of year but by summer will be bursting with yellow rattle, knapweeds and other wildflowers. Neighbouring farmers bemoan the tangle of Gow’s untrimmed hedges. He has messed up his land further by dumping piles of broken-up concrete and pyres of dead branches in once-lush pastures. The branches are perches for wild birds whose droppings will seed more trees; the concrete piles will attract wheatears in winter and adders in summer. He’s dug 100 ponds and channels to boost declining birds such as woodcock and snipe; the beavers will do the rest, damming small streams to expand these new wetlands. Scientific studies have shown that once this watery habitat returns, so do insects, amphibians, reptiles and birds, in their thousands. “It’s not changing the world. It’s not the Serengeti but slowly, slowly we’re starting to see things responding,” says Gow. “Small red damselflies have gone from 40 to 670 in three years. Kestrels and barn owls come back. This year, the first crane flew over. We had goshawks last week and a nightjar calling last summer. There are charms of goldfinch in the hundreds. I never thought this farm would become a bird-watching location.” Gow’s rewilding is funded by his environmental consultancy (he’s currently relocating water voles for Sizewell nuclear power station) and backers including environmentalist and financier Ben Goldsmith. “A gentle, kind, able man”, says Gow. “The day will come when some of the things that he’s done can be talked about and he’s just been astounding.” Gow hopes to expand his own efforts by linking like-minded small landowners and investors. Pension-fund managers visited his farm the previous day. “We want to buy as much of the river corridor as possible, to safeguard the beavers on the river system,” he says. Gow’s neighbours wonder about lost food production but he insists that this land was boggy moorland until it was drained in the 1940s, and has subsequently only ever produced relatively small amounts of lamb, beef or milk. Gow knows that his personal rewilding is a fragment within one of the most nature-depleted countries on the planet. His major contribution to rewilding Britain is through captive-breeding “at scale”. Aged 58, he is a man in a hurry. “I want to focus on species that need a hand,” he says. He’s still churning out water voles but this year will captive-breed adders to help connect increasingly isolated wild populations of this rapidly declining snake. He’s also breeding turtle doves, white and black storks and glowworms, and plans to start on mole crickets and other bird species. “We’ll have a little shot at red-backed shrike later this year. We also want to try breeding black grouse here.” Gow, who is famously rude about both conservationists and farmers, criticises conservation scientists for their caution over reintroducing species. “You look at the environmentalists who die year on year in the Amazon in fights with ranchers and you look where we are and we’re so fucking useless,” he says. He may secretly admire farmers for getting on and doing stuff but he thinks too many farmers only reflect on the fact that their agricultural systems have destroyed nature when they reach retirement. “Many of these old men become contemplative at the end of their lives and by the time you get to your early 70s – it’s too late. I’ve no intention of getting to the age of reflection and saying, ‘I wish I’d done that 10 years ago’. Even if I fucking fail, I’m going to do it.” The conservation “inertia” he criticises is derived, he believes, from a terror of making mistakes. “When we began with water voles we must’ve spent six years killing water voles in different ways, and then we got it right, and learned how to breed them,” he says. “There’s no such thing as mistakes, it’s just learning. It becomes a mistake when you continue fucking it up in the same sort of way.” Gow is aiming to produce 30 wildcat kittens per year for a reintroduction still under consultation in Devon and Cornwall. Years of controversy over bringing back predators as unthreatening to human interests as wildcats have taught him that returning the wolf to Britain is fraught with difficulty. Wolves are destined to be pawns in a culture war that pits country against town. “Speak to people in London and everyone agrees it will be brilliant. Go to a meeting here…” Gow gives a dark look. He’s still bristling about a recent meeting in the Cairngorms about beavers and wildcat releases in the national park. A parade of “bullying bastard” farmers arrived in “a wee convoy” of tractors to protest “on the basis of the national park releasing four beavers and 18 wildcat kittens, and the farmers say they are being disenfranchised, they are the indigenous people, they produce food, and they jump up and down and scream. And then the national park authorities who are not robust people just cave in, and before you know where you are even small things become impossible. You wouldn’t speak to a Norman overlord like that,” he says of the farmers’ complaints. “Or if you did, you’d only do so once.” Gow’s knowledge of Norman overlords comes from researching the wolf’s traumatic British history. He was inspired by his mum telling him stories of “the last wolf” in Scotland when he was a child and by rearing two wolves in his zookeeper days. Gow, who has the open mind of an autodidact, began examining all the myths of the heroic slaughter of “last” wolves which, in parts of Scotland, were passed down generations in oral culture. “The point is to tell a story that is as funny as it can be when it comes to flaying and evisceration, which is not that funny, but also to tell a story that has a degree of warmth to it,” he says. He pieced together legends from random witchcraft books serendipitously discovered in secondhand bookshops and cross-checked tall tales with academic histories and modern ecological knowledge. Gow believes the wolf clung on in Scotland until the late 18th century and, given that young satellite-tagged wolves have been found to wander 1,250 miles in modern-day Europe, youngsters would have repeatedly entered England. For the English, wolves were “a symbol of something that was wild, subhuman, wrong, evil” that lived further north, says Gow. They were hated because in wars and plagues they would excavate graves and devour human carcasses. Gow knows from rearing wolves that they are dangerous animals but there are vanishingly few recorded incidents of wolves attacking people in modern western Europe. Wolves are a scapegoat. Were historic yarns of women and children being killed by wolves that era’s cover for male domestic violence? “It’s impossible to prove but it might be that,” says Gow. Ultimately, we exterminated wolves not because they imperilled us but because they ate into our wealth: wolves killed sheep, and wool made medieval Britain rich. “Sheep are wolves’ oldest enemy,” he says. Ecologists calculate that Scotland has space for 50 to 94 wolf packs. Wolves, argues Gow, will produce many environmental benefits, chiefly reducing our 2m deer, a wild population growing by 10% each year and living at a far higher density than in any other European country. So many deer are decimating rare plants and preventing the natural regeneration of trees. But the main obstacle to the wolf’s return remains sheep. Gow subscribes to the rewilders’ view exemplified by George Monbiot that sheep are ecological vandals responsible for the nature-denuded state of upland Britain. In North America, says Gow, national parks have wild animals such as bears as their symbols; the Yorkshire Dales national park’s is a Swaledale sheep. “Is that just the British sitting with their heads up their arse and not thinking how deeply inadequate it is?” asks Gow. “Landscapes with high densities of sheep have many fewer insects; there is erosion, vegetation loss, flooding and pollution.” Wool wealth is no more and Gow says sheep farming is a failing industry and the “food security” argument is fatuous given more than a quarter of British lamb is exported. And yet subsidies continue to support it. “Just chucking a load of money at some sheep farmer on the top of Bodmin only prolongs the misery, and the mental-health issues [for struggling farmers] and the environmental destruction.” View image in fullscreen “Just chucking a load of money at some sheep farmer on the top of Bodmin only prolongs the misery”: Derek Gow. Photograph: Leon Foggitt/The Observer There seems to be something viscerally personal about Gow’s dislike of sheep today, given his long history tending to them. His son manages a flock of sheep, and a few still roam Gow’s farm “left over from my mother who used to show Shetland sheep. She died in 2006. Would she have wanted me to keep them? I don’t really think she’d be bothered. I don’t enjoy them any more. It’s the end. But it’s been a long and lingering love affair. I understand why people feel about them the way they do. It’s a very vulnerable animal and you’ve got Lambing Live and Countryfile ogling over a domestic animal that’s going to be a bundle of meat in six months’ time. There’s an old saying: sheep spend their whole life being afraid of the wolf only to be eaten by the shepherd.” French shepherds are in uproar over that country’s resurgent wolf population because 12,000 livestock animals – mostly sheep – are predated each year. Gow points out that 15,000 sheep were killed by out-of-control dogs in Britain in 2016. He hopes high-tech solutions such as a sheep collar that emits a wolf pheromone which has been shown to keep sheep safe in Switzerland might lead to coexistence between farmers and wolves. Ultimately, he thinks, the wolf will only be allowed back into Britain when future generations take charge. “We’ll have a different cultural landscape which will enable them to do this. But we should start to talk about it. If wolves are hunting roe deer on housing estates in Belgium, why not here? We live in a time where we’ve got an urban population being enthralled when they see a wolf. Is acceptance coming with it? When there was still a late-medieval mindset, 150 years ago, nobody would have accepted any of this. So we are in a different place. Therein lies hope. But it’s through a glass darkly.” Hunt for the Shadow Wolf by Derek Gow (Chelsea Green, £20) is out now. Buy it for £17.60 at guardianbookshop.com This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Rewilding The Observer Wildlife features Share Reuse this content Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy View image in fullscreen Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Wolves are thriving again across western Europe. Is it time to bring them back to the UK? This article is more than 1 year old Former sheep farmer Derek Gow is on a mission to rewild Britain. Having switched sides from team sheep, he wants to reintroduce its mortal enemy… A cross the River Wolf and along several miles of muddy Devon lanes lies Derek Gow’s lair. Inside a crepuscular barn filled with a pungent aroma, an imposing, bearded Scot sits surrounded by his collection of animal skulls, stuffed beavers, taxidermied badgers and birds of prey. A distinctive stench wafts from the head of an ibex mounted on the wall. The barn is badged as an education centre but it would terrify some visitors. This gothic scene reaches its climax when – bang! – a shot is fired nearby. Gow looks relaxed. “She’s not shooting anything,” he says of his neighbouring farmer. “It’s a gas gun, trying to scare a bunch of complacent geese.” Gow, a former sheep farmer, has become one of the most remarkable figures in British conservation. After working in various zoos, he began captive-breeding water voles 25 years ago. Since then, working with conservation groups and landowners, he’s repopulated wetlands with 25,000 of the highly endangered mammal. The “vole room” on his rewilded farm still produces 1,000 each year. Alongside voles, he started breeding beavers for fenced rewilding projects across Britain. A number escaped and now form a burgeoning population living freely along the 60-mile River Tamar between Devon and Cornwall. Over the past 15 years, other beavers mysteriously materialised on river systems across the country; Gow denies it was his work but beavers are officially recognised as a native species once again. After writing a popular book about bringing back the beaver, this former lover of sheep is following it with a book about the sheep’s mortal enemy, and the most controversial candidate for returning to Britain: the wolf. At rewilding conferences, meek conservationists will say to Gow, “We’re not here to talk about the wolf.” “Why?” he asks now. “The opponents of rewilding hate you anyway. You’re never going to convince these people.” View image in fullscreen The wolfman of Devon: Derek Gow in his barn, surrounded by his extensive collection of skulls and stuffed animals. Photograph: Leon Foggitt/The Observer He wants to start a conversation about bringing back the wolf, and not just because this much-traduced carnivore has loped back into western Europe and is thriving in densely populated countries including the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany which, like us, are burdened by a long history of beastly folklore. “The big predators were the things we went for first,” he says. “It’s not very mature to view every animal from the badger up as a major threat, and the only solution is to destroy them. We can never come to terms with nature, with other life on this planet, if we can’t come to terms with big predators.” Before we discuss Gow’s hunt for the wolf in British history, where he knits together myths, dusty historical records and modern ecology to show that wolves are more deeply embedded in our landscape than we imagine, he takes me on a tour of the 400-acre farm he is returning to nature. We speed off in Gow’s little all-terrain vehicle, slaloming through the sodden fields, wheels spinning, mud splattering, no seat belts, up steep-sided hills that until a few years ago were a familiar English patchwork of green fields. Gow is creating a new kind of idyll. He identifies his acres by field hue. The emerald pastures straight from a picture book of the countryside are the heavily fertilised “improved” fields of his neighbours. These look neat but are mostly lifeless, usually containing a single species of grass upon which cows or sheep feed. The yellow, raggedy fields are his. They appear scruffy at this time of year but by summer will be bursting with yellow rattle, knapweeds and other wildflowers. Neighbouring farmers bemoan the tangle of Gow’s untrimmed hedges. He has messed up his land further by dumping piles of broken-up concrete and pyres of dead branches in once-lush pastures. The branches are perches for wild birds whose droppings will seed more trees; the concrete piles will attract wheatears in winter and adders in summer. He’s dug 100 ponds and channels to boost declining birds such as woodcock and snipe; the beavers will do the rest, damming small streams to expand these new wetlands. Scientific studies have shown that once this watery habitat returns, so do insects, amphibians, reptiles and birds, in their thousands. “It’s not changing the world. It’s not the Serengeti but slowly, slowly we’re starting to see things responding,” says Gow. “Small red damselflies have gone from 40 to 670 in three years. Kestrels and barn owls come back. This year, the first crane flew over. We had goshawks last week and a nightjar calling last summer. There are charms of goldfinch in the hundreds. I never thought this farm would become a bird-watching location.” Gow’s rewilding is funded by his environmental consultancy (he’s currently relocating water voles for Sizewell nuclear power station) and backers including environmentalist and financier Ben Goldsmith. “A gentle, kind, able man”, says Gow. “The day will come when some of the things that he’s done can be talked about and he’s just been astounding.” Gow hopes to expand his own efforts by linking like-minded small landowners and investors. Pension-fund managers visited his farm the previous day. “We want to buy as much of the river corridor as possible, to safeguard the beavers on the river system,” he says. Gow’s neighbours wonder about lost food production but he insists that this land was boggy moorland until it was drained in the 1940s, and has subsequently only ever produced relatively small amounts of lamb, beef or milk. Gow knows that his personal rewilding is a fragment within one of the most nature-depleted countries on the planet. His major contribution to rewilding Britain is through captive-breeding “at scale”. Aged 58, he is a man in a hurry. “I want to focus on species that need a hand,” he says. He’s still churning out water voles but this year will captive-breed adders to help connect increasingly isolated wild populations of this rapidly declining snake. He’s also breeding turtle doves, white and black storks and glowworms, and plans to start on mole crickets and other bird species. “We’ll have a little shot at red-backed shrike later this year. We also want to try breeding black grouse here.” Gow, who is famously rude about both conservationists and farmers, criticises conservation scientists for their caution over reintroducing species. “You look at the environmentalists who die year on year in the Amazon in fights with ranchers and you look where we are and we’re so fucking useless,” he says. He may secretly admire farmers for getting on and doing stuff but he thinks too many farmers only reflect on the fact that their agricultural systems have destroyed nature when they reach retirement. “Many of these old men become contemplative at the end of their lives and by the time you get to your early 70s – it’s too late. I’ve no intention of getting to the age of reflection and saying, ‘I wish I’d done that 10 years ago’. Even if I fucking fail, I’m going to do it.” The conservation “inertia” he criticises is derived, he believes, from a terror of making mistakes. “When we began with water voles we must’ve spent six years killing water voles in different ways, and then we got it right, and learned how to breed them,” he says. “There’s no such thing as mistakes, it’s just learning. It becomes a mistake when you continue fucking it up in the same sort of way.” Gow is aiming to produce 30 wildcat kittens per year for a reintroduction still under consultation in Devon and Cornwall. Years of controversy over bringing back predators as unthreatening to human interests as wildcats have taught him that returning the wolf to Britain is fraught with difficulty. Wolves are destined to be pawns in a culture war that pits country against town. “Speak to people in London and everyone agrees it will be brilliant. Go to a meeting here…” Gow gives a dark look. He’s still bristling about a recent meeting in the Cairngorms about beavers and wildcat releases in the national park. A parade of “bullying bastard” farmers arrived in “a wee convoy” of tractors to protest “on the basis of the national park releasing four beavers and 18 wildcat kittens, and the farmers say they are being disenfranchised, they are the indigenous people, they produce food, and they jump up and down and scream. And then the national park authorities who are not robust people just cave in, and before you know where you are even small things become impossible. You wouldn’t speak to a Norman overlord like that,” he says of the farmers’ complaints. “Or if you did, you’d only do so once.” Gow’s knowledge of Norman overlords comes from researching the wolf’s traumatic British history. He was inspired by his mum telling him stories of “the last wolf” in Scotland when he was a child and by rearing two wolves in his zookeeper days. Gow, who has the open mind of an autodidact, began examining all the myths of the heroic slaughter of “last” wolves which, in parts of Scotland, were passed down generations in oral culture. “The point is to tell a story that is as funny as it can be when it comes to flaying and evisceration, which is not that funny, but also to tell a story that has a degree of warmth to it,” he says. He pieced together legends from random witchcraft books serendipitously discovered in secondhand bookshops and cross-checked tall tales with academic histories and modern ecological knowledge. Gow believes the wolf clung on in Scotland until the late 18th century and, given that young satellite-tagged wolves have been found to wander 1,250 miles in modern-day Europe, youngsters would have repeatedly entered England. For the English, wolves were “a symbol of something that was wild, subhuman, wrong, evil” that lived further north, says Gow. They were hated because in wars and plagues they would excavate graves and devour human carcasses. Gow knows from rearing wolves that they are dangerous animals but there are vanishingly few recorded incidents of wolves attacking people in modern western Europe. Wolves are a scapegoat. Were historic yarns of women and children being killed by wolves that era’s cover for male domestic violence? “It’s impossible to prove but it might be that,” says Gow. Ultimately, we exterminated wolves not because they imperilled us but because they ate into our wealth: wolves killed sheep, and wool made medieval Britain rich. “Sheep are wolves’ oldest enemy,” he says. Ecologists calculate that Scotland has space for 50 to 94 wolf packs. Wolves, argues Gow, will produce many environmental benefits, chiefly reducing our 2m deer, a wild population growing by 10% each year and living at a far higher density than in any other European country. So many deer are decimating rare plants and preventing the natural regeneration of trees. But the main obstacle to the wolf’s return remains sheep. Gow subscribes to the rewilders’ view exemplified by George Monbiot that sheep are ecological vandals responsible for the nature-denuded state of upland Britain. In North America, says Gow, national parks have wild animals such as bears as their symbols; the Yorkshire Dales national park’s is a Swaledale sheep. “Is that just the British sitting with their heads up their arse and not thinking how deeply inadequate it is?” asks Gow. “Landscapes with high densities of sheep have many fewer insects; there is erosion, vegetation loss, flooding and pollution.” Wool wealth is no more and Gow says sheep farming is a failing industry and the “food security” argument is fatuous given more than a quarter of British lamb is exported. And yet subsidies continue to support it. “Just chucking a load of money at some sheep farmer on the top of Bodmin only prolongs the misery, and the mental-health issues [for struggling farmers] and the environmental destruction.” View image in fullscreen “Just chucking a load of money at some sheep farmer on the top of Bodmin only prolongs the misery”: Derek Gow. Photograph: Leon Foggitt/The Observer There seems to be something viscerally personal about Gow’s dislike of sheep today, given his long history tending to them. His son manages a flock of sheep, and a few still roam Gow’s farm “left over from my mother who used to show Shetland sheep. She died in 2006. Would she have wanted me to keep them? I don’t really think she’d be bothered. I don’t enjoy them any more. It’s the end. But it’s been a long and lingering love affair. I understand why people feel about them the way they do. It’s a very vulnerable animal and you’ve got Lambing Live and Countryfile ogling over a domestic animal that’s going to be a bundle of meat in six months’ time. There’s an old saying: sheep spend their whole life being afraid of the wolf only to be eaten by the shepherd.” French shepherds are in uproar over that country’s resurgent wolf population because 12,000 livestock animals – mostly sheep – are predated each year. Gow points out that 15,000 sheep were killed by out-of-control dogs in Britain in 2016. He hopes high-tech solutions such as a sheep collar that emits a wolf pheromone which has been shown to keep sheep safe in Switzerland might lead to coexistence between farmers and wolves. Ultimately, he thinks, the wolf will only be allowed back into Britain when future generations take charge. “We’ll have a different cultural landscape which will enable them to do this. But we should start to talk about it. If wolves are hunting roe deer on housing estates in Belgium, why not here? We live in a time where we’ve got an urban population being enthralled when they see a wolf. Is acceptance coming with it? When there was still a late-medieval mindset, 150 years ago, nobody would have accepted any of this. So we are in a different place. Therein lies hope. But it’s through a glass darkly.” Hunt for the Shadow Wolf by Derek Gow (Chelsea Green, £20) is out now. Buy it for £17.60 at guardianbookshop.com This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Rewilding The Observer Wildlife features Share Reuse this content Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy View image in fullscreen Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy View image in fullscreen Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy View image in fullscreen Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy View image in fullscreen Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy Right to roam: Canis lupus , the European grey wolf. Photograph: Christoph Bosch/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Wolves are thriving again across western Europe. Is it time to bring them back to the UK? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Wolves are thriving again across western Europe. Is it time to bring them back to the UK? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Wolves are thriving again across western Europe. Is it time to bring them back to the UK? This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Former sheep farmer Derek Gow is on a mission to rewild Britain. Having switched sides from team sheep, he wants to reintroduce its mortal enemy… Former sheep farmer Derek Gow is on a mission to rewild Britain. Having switched sides from team sheep, he wants to reintroduce its mortal enemy… Former sheep farmer Derek Gow is on a mission to rewild Britain. Having switched sides from team sheep, he wants to reintroduce its mortal enemy… A cross the River Wolf and along several miles of muddy Devon lanes lies Derek Gow’s lair. Inside a crepuscular barn filled with a pungent aroma, an imposing, bearded Scot sits surrounded by his collection of animal skulls, stuffed beavers, taxidermied badgers and birds of prey. A distinctive stench wafts from the head of an ibex mounted on the wall. The barn is badged as an education centre but it would terrify some visitors. This gothic scene reaches its climax when – bang! – a shot is fired nearby. Gow looks relaxed. “She’s not shooting anything,” he says of his neighbouring farmer. “It’s a gas gun, trying to scare a bunch of complacent geese.” Gow, a former sheep farmer, has become one of the most remarkable figures in British conservation. After working in various zoos, he began captive-breeding water voles 25 years ago. Since then, working with conservation groups and landowners, he’s repopulated wetlands with 25,000 of the highly endangered mammal. The “vole room” on his rewilded farm still produces 1,000 each year. Alongside voles, he started breeding beavers for fenced rewilding projects across Britain. A number escaped and now form a burgeoning population living freely along the 60-mile River Tamar between Devon and Cornwall. Over the past 15 years, other beavers mysteriously materialised on river systems across the country; Gow denies it was his work but beavers are officially recognised as a native species once again. After writing a popular book about bringing back the beaver, this former lover of sheep is following it with a book about the sheep’s mortal enemy, and the most controversial candidate for returning to Britain: the wolf. At rewilding conferences, meek conservationists will say to Gow, “We’re not here to talk about the wolf.” “Why?” he asks now. “The opponents of rewilding hate you anyway. You’re never going to convince these people.” View image in fullscreen The wolfman of Devon: Derek Gow in his barn, surrounded by his extensive collection of skulls and stuffed animals. Photograph: Leon Foggitt/The Observer He wants to start a conversation about bringing back the wolf, and not just because this much-traduced carnivore has loped back into western Europe and is thriving in densely populated countries including the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany which, like us, are burdened by a long history of beastly folklore. “The big predators were the things we went for first,” he says. “It’s not very mature to view every animal from the badger up as a major threat, and the only solution is to destroy them. We can never come to terms with nature, with other life on this planet, if we can’t come to terms with big predators.” Before we discuss Gow’s hunt for the wolf in British history, where he knits together myths, dusty historical records and modern ecology to show that wolves are more deeply embedded in our landscape than we imagine, he takes me on a tour of the 400-acre farm he is returning to nature. We speed off in Gow’s little all-terrain vehicle, slaloming through the sodden fields, wheels spinning, mud splattering, no seat belts, up steep-sided hills that until a few years ago were a familiar English patchwork of green fields. Gow is creating a new kind of idyll. He identifies his acres by field hue. The emerald pastures straight from a picture book of the countryside are the heavily fertilised “improved” fields of his neighbours. These look neat but are mostly lifeless, usually containing a single species of grass upon which cows or sheep feed. The yellow, raggedy fields are his. They appear scruffy at this time of year but by summer will be bursting with yellow rattle, knapweeds and other wildflowers. Neighbouring farmers bemoan the tangle of Gow’s untrimmed hedges. He has messed up his land further by dumping piles of broken-up concrete and pyres of dead branches in once-lush pastures. The branches are perches for wild birds whose droppings will seed more trees; the concrete piles will attract wheatears in winter and adders in summer. He’s dug 100 ponds and channels to boost declining birds such as woodcock and snipe; the beavers will do the rest, damming small streams to expand these new wetlands. Scientific studies have shown that once this watery habitat returns, so do insects, amphibians, reptiles and birds, in their thousands. “It’s not changing the world. It’s not the Serengeti but slowly, slowly we’re starting to see things responding,” says Gow. “Small red damselflies have gone from 40 to 670 in three years. Kestrels and barn owls come back. This year, the first crane flew over. We had goshawks last week and a nightjar calling last summer. There are charms of goldfinch in the hundreds. I never thought this farm would become a bird-watching location.” Gow’s rewilding is funded by his environmental consultancy (he’s currently relocating water voles for Sizewell nuclear power station) and backers including environmentalist and financier Ben Goldsmith. “A gentle, kind, able man”, says Gow. “The day will come when some of the things that he’s done can be talked about and he’s just been astounding.” Gow hopes to expand his own efforts by linking like-minded small landowners and investors. Pension-fund managers visited his farm the previous day. “We want to buy as much of the river corridor as possible, to safeguard the beavers on the river system,” he says. Gow’s neighbours wonder about lost food production but he insists that this land was boggy moorland until it was drained in the 1940s, and has subsequently only ever produced relatively small amounts of lamb, beef or milk. Gow knows that his personal rewilding is a fragment within one of the most nature-depleted countries on the planet. His major contribution to rewilding Britain is through captive-breeding “at scale”. Aged 58, he is a man in a hurry. “I want to focus on species that need a hand,” he says. He’s still churning out water voles but this year will captive-breed adders to help connect increasingly isolated wild populations of this rapidly declining snake. He’s also breeding turtle doves, white and black storks and glowworms, and plans to start on mole crickets and other bird species. “We’ll have a little shot at red-backed shrike later this year. We also want to try breeding black grouse here.” Gow, who is famously rude about both conservationists and farmers, criticises conservation scientists for their caution over reintroducing species. “You look at the environmentalists who die year on year in the Amazon in fights with ranchers and you look where we are and we’re so fucking useless,” he says. He may secretly admire farmers for getting on and doing stuff but he thinks too many farmers only reflect on the fact that their agricultural systems have destroyed nature when they reach retirement. “Many of these old men become contemplative at the end of their lives and by the time you get to your early 70s – it’s too late. I’ve no intention of getting to the age of reflection and saying, ‘I wish I’d done that 10 years ago’. Even if I fucking fail, I’m going to do it.” The conservation “inertia” he criticises is derived, he believes, from a terror of making mistakes. “When we began with water voles we must’ve spent six years killing water voles in different ways, and then we got it right, and learned how to breed them,” he says. “There’s no such thing as mistakes, it’s just learning. It becomes a mistake when you continue fucking it up in the same sort of way.” Gow is aiming to produce 30 wildcat kittens per year for a reintroduction still under consultation in Devon and Cornwall. Years of controversy over bringing back predators as unthreatening to human interests as wildcats have taught him that returning the wolf to Britain is fraught with difficulty. Wolves are destined to be pawns in a culture war that pits country against town. “Speak to people in London and everyone agrees it will be brilliant. Go to a meeting here…” Gow gives a dark look. He’s still bristling about a recent meeting in the Cairngorms about beavers and wildcat releases in the national park. A parade of “bullying bastard” farmers arrived in “a wee convoy” of tractors to protest “on the basis of the national park releasing four beavers and 18 wildcat kittens, and the farmers say they are being disenfranchised, they are the indigenous people, they produce food, and they jump up and down and scream. And then the national park authorities who are not robust people just cave in, and before you know where you are even small things become impossible. You wouldn’t speak to a Norman overlord like that,” he says of the farmers’ complaints. “Or if you did, you’d only do so once.” Gow’s knowledge of Norman overlords comes from researching the wolf’s traumatic British history. He was inspired by his mum telling him stories of “the last wolf” in Scotland when he was a child and by rearing two wolves in his zookeeper days. Gow, who has the open mind of an autodidact, began examining all the myths of the heroic slaughter of “last” wolves which, in parts of Scotland, were passed down generations in oral culture. “The point is to tell a story that is as funny as it can be when it comes to flaying and evisceration, which is not that funny, but also to tell a story that has a degree of warmth to it,” he says. He pieced together legends from random witchcraft books serendipitously discovered in secondhand bookshops and cross-checked tall tales with academic histories and modern ecological knowledge. Gow believes the wolf clung on in Scotland until the late 18th century and, given that young satellite-tagged wolves have been found to wander 1,250 miles in modern-day Europe, youngsters would have repeatedly entered England. For the English, wolves were “a symbol of something that was wild, subhuman, wrong, evil” that lived further north, says Gow. They were hated because in wars and plagues they would excavate graves and devour human carcasses. Gow knows from rearing wolves that they are dangerous animals but there are vanishingly few recorded incidents of wolves attacking people in modern western Europe. Wolves are a scapegoat. Were historic yarns of women and children being killed by wolves that era’s cover for male domestic violence? “It’s impossible to prove but it might be that,” says Gow. Ultimately, we exterminated wolves not because they imperilled us but because they ate into our wealth: wolves killed sheep, and wool made medieval Britain rich. “Sheep are wolves’ oldest enemy,” he says. Ecologists calculate that Scotland has space for 50 to 94 wolf packs. Wolves, argues Gow, will produce many environmental benefits, chiefly reducing our 2m deer, a wild population growing by 10% each year and living at a far higher density than in any other European country. So many deer are decimating rare plants and preventing the natural regeneration of trees. But the main obstacle to the wolf’s return remains sheep. Gow subscribes to the rewilders’ view exemplified by George Monbiot that sheep are ecological vandals responsible for the nature-denuded state of upland Britain. In North America, says Gow, national parks have wild animals such as bears as their symbols; the Yorkshire Dales national park’s is a Swaledale sheep. “Is that just the British sitting with their heads up their arse and not thinking how deeply inadequate it is?” asks Gow. “Landscapes with high densities of sheep have many fewer insects; there is erosion, vegetation loss, flooding and pollution.” Wool wealth is no more and Gow says sheep farming is a failing industry and the “food security” argument is fatuous given more than a quarter of British lamb is exported. And yet subsidies continue to support it. “Just chucking a load of money at some sheep farmer on the top of Bodmin only prolongs the misery, and the mental-health issues [for struggling farmers] and the environmental destruction.” View image in fullscreen “Just chucking a load of money at some sheep farmer on the top of Bodmin only prolongs the misery”: Derek Gow. Photograph: Leon Foggitt/The Observer There seems to be something viscerally personal about Gow’s dislike of sheep today, given his long history tending to them. His son manages a flock of sheep, and a few still roam Gow’s farm “left over from my mother who used to show Shetland sheep. She died in 2006. Would she have wanted me to keep them? I don’t really think she’d be bothered. I don’t enjoy them any more. It’s the end. But it’s been a long and lingering love affair. I understand why people feel about them the way they do. It’s a very vulnerable animal and you’ve got Lambing Live and Countryfile ogling over a domestic animal that’s going to be a bundle of meat in six months’ time. There’s an old saying: sheep spend their whole life being afraid of the wolf only to be eaten by the shepherd.” French shepherds are in uproar over that country’s resurgent wolf population because 12,000 livestock animals – mostly sheep – are predated each year. Gow points out that 15,000 sheep were killed by out-of-control dogs in Britain in 2016. He hopes high-tech solutions such as a sheep collar that emits a wolf pheromone which has been shown to keep sheep safe in Switzerland might lead to coexistence between farmers and wolves. Ultimately, he thinks, the wolf will only be allowed back into Britain when future generations take charge. “We’ll have a different cultural landscape which will enable them to do this. But we should start to talk about it. If wolves are hunting roe deer on housing estates in Belgium, why not here? We live in a time where we’ve got an urban population being enthralled when they see a wolf. Is acceptance coming with it? When there was still a late-medieval mindset, 150 years ago, nobody would have accepted any of this. So we are in a different place. Therein lies hope. But it’s through a glass darkly.” Hunt for the Shadow Wolf by Derek Gow (Chelsea Green, £20) is out now. Buy it for £17.60 at guardianbookshop.com This is the archive of The Observer up until 21/04/2025. The Observer is now owned and operated by Tortoise Media. Explore more on these topics Rewilding The Observer Wildlife features Share Reuse this content A cross the River Wolf and along several miles of muddy Devon lanes lies Derek Gow’s lair. Inside a crepuscular barn filled with a pungent aroma, an imposing, bearded Scot sits surrounded by his collection of animal skulls, stuffed beavers, taxidermied badgers and birds of prey. A distinctive stench wafts from the head of an ibex mounted on the wall. The barn is badged as an education centre but it would terrify some visitors. This gothic scene reaches its climax when – bang! – a shot is fired nearby. Gow looks relaxed. “She’s not shooting anything,” he says of his neighbouring farmer. “It’s a gas gun, trying to scare a bunch of complacent geese.” Gow, a former sheep farmer, has become one of the most remarkable figures in British conservation. After working in various zoos, he began captive-breeding water voles 25 years ago. Since then, working with conservation groups and landowners, he’s repopulated wetlands with 25,000 of the highly endangered mammal. The “vole room” on his rewilded farm still produces 1,000 each year. Alongside voles, he started breeding beavers for fenced rewilding projects across Britain. A number escaped and now form a burgeoning population living freely along the 60-mile River Tamar between Devon and Cornwall. Over the past 15 years, other beavers mysteriously materialised on river systems across the country; Gow denies it was his work but beavers are officially recognised as a native species once again. After writing a popular book about bringing back the beaver, this former lover of sheep is following it with a book about the sheep’s mortal enemy, and the most controversial candidate for returning to Britain: the wolf. At rewilding conferences, meek conservationists will say to Gow, “We’re not here to talk about the wolf.” “Why?” he asks now. “The opponents of rewilding hate you anyway. You’re never going to convince these people.” View image in fullscreen The wolfman of Devon: Derek Gow in his barn, surrounded by his extensive collection of skulls and stuffed animals. Photograph: Leon Foggitt/The Observer He wants to start a conversation about bringing back the wolf, and not just because this much-traduced carnivore has loped back into western Europe and is thriving in densely populated countries including the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany which, like us, are burdened by a long history of beastly folklore. “The big predators were the things we went for first,” he says. “It’s not very mature to view every animal from the badger up as a major threat, and the only solution is to destroy them. We can never come to terms with nature, with other life on this planet, if we can’t come to terms with big predators.” Before we discuss Gow’s hunt for the wolf in British history, where he knits together myths, dusty historical records and modern ecology to show that wolves are more deeply embedded in our landscape than we imagine, he takes me on a tour of the 400-acre farm he is returning to nature. We speed off in Gow’s little all-terrain vehicle, slaloming through the sodden fields, wheels spinning, mud splattering, no seat belts, up steep-sided hills that until a few years ago were a familiar English patchwork of green fields. Gow is creating a new kind of idyll. He identifies his acres by field hue. The emerald pastures strai
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Three Tory ex-home secretaries warn against politicising anti-extremism
Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Three Tory ex-home secretaries warn against politicising anti-extremism This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Intervention by Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd just before Michael Gove unveils official definition of extremism ‘An appalling direction’: UK activists criticise plans to redefine extremism Leading counter-terror and extremism experts, including three former Conservative home secretaries, have warned senior politicians against using extremism to score political points, as the communities secretary, Michael Gove , prepares to announce his controversial new anti-extremism plan. Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd are among a dozen signatories to a joint statement warning about the risks of politicising anti-extremism, just days before the communities secretary unveils his proposals. Others who signed the statement include Brendan Cox, the widower of the MP Jo Cox and co-founder of Survivors Against Terror, Neil Basu, the former head of counter-terrorism policing, and Richard Dannatt, the former chief of the general staff. The warning comes days before Gove is set to publish the government’s new official definition of extremism, which critics say will be so broad that it risks exacerbating community tensions and leaves ministers open to legal challenge . The statement said: “In the run-up to a general election, it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short-term tactical advantage. “We urge the Labour party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election.” Patel told the Guardian: “It is really important that we do not malign the wrong people through the wrong definitions. We haven’t seen anything yet from the government, but it is easy, as we have seen historically, to hide behind labels or definitions which sometimes end up being counterproductive. “None of this should ever be political. It has to strike the right balance between free speech and how we bring communities together.” Her warning was echoed by Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Hall did not sign the statement, but told the Guardian: “The proposed definition of extremism is very loose. It’s not being debated in parliament and effectively it is a government label. The distinction from the way we deal with terrorism couldn’t be clearer.” Gove’s new definition of extremism will classify individuals or groups as extremist if they seek to undermine Britain’s system of liberal democracy. The communities secretary is set to instruct ministers and officials to cut off contact with groups or individuals who breach the new definition, and local authorities are expected to follow suit. Gove told the Sunday Telegraph this weekend that he would seek to define extremism less by the actions of groups under scrutiny than by their underlying ideology. “The definition will … give practitioners more specificity on the ideologies, behaviour and groups of concern to support vital counter-radicalisation work,” he said. Gove has sought to present the new strategy in the light of the protests that have gripped the country since the 7 October attack by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli assault on Gaza. He singled out pro-Palestinian protesters for criticism in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph, focusing attention particularly on those who use the slogan “From the river to the sea”. “Let’s be clear that there is a difference between a cry for peace and the legitimisation of an extremist position which intimidates and leads to hate,” he said. Earlier this month, the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, gave a speech outside Downing Street in which he warned that there were “forces here at home trying to tear us apart”. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, endorsed Sunak’s comments, saying: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently.” However, Hall warned against focusing on ideology rather than action. “The proposed policy is about ideology,” he said. “But a lot of respected scholars and thinkers would say you go after action, because ultimately what matters is if someone acts violently or encourages violence.” The Observer revealed on Sunday that senior figures inside the government had warned Gove against pushing ahead with his plan to announce the new definition without consulting community groups or faith leaders. An internal briefing paper admitted that doing so would leave the government “at greater risk of legal challenge”, while others in government believe Gove is rushing out the proposals in the hope of damaging Labour ahead of a general election campaign. Cox, whose wife Jo was murdered in 2016 by a far-right extremist, told the Guardian: “Whatever the temptations, you can’t play politics around this. Tying it to the election timetable is the wrong approach.” The government has announced that more than £117m will be used to protect mosques, Muslim schools and community centres from hate attacks over the next four years. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said the money, which will be spent on measures including CCTV cameras, alarms and fencing, would give “reassurance and confidence to UK Muslims”. The announcement follows a £70m package for Jewish groups and comes in response to concerns that the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza is fuelling division in the UK. As Gove prepares to release his plan, he has been hit by the news that Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of the anti-Islamophobia project Tell Mama, will not become the new anti-Muslim hatred leader. Mughal was due to be unveiled in his new role on Monday, but told the Guardian on Sunday he had decided not to accept after receiving abuse online from extremist groups. He denied a report that he had been blocked by Downing Street amid accusations he previously suppressed a review of the Conservative party’s links with far-right groups. A government spokesperson said: “We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” The letter in full Keeping citizens safe is the first responsibility of government. So dealing with extremism is essential given the real threats from Islamist extremists, far right extremists and others. It requires as broad a consensus as possible if we are to be successful in marginalising and defeating it. In the run up to a general election it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short term tactical advantage. We urge the Labour Party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election. Our country is most effective in tackling extremism when it does it together. Neil Basu, QPM Former head of counter terrorism policing Rt Hon Amber Rudd Former home secretary The Lord Dannatt GCB, CBE, MC Former chief of the general staff Brendan Cox Co-founder of Survivors Against Terror Lord Walney Government advisor on political violence and disruption Rt Hon Priti Patel Former home secretary Lord Mann Independent advisor to the government on anti-semitism Dame Sara Khan Government independent advisor for social cohesion Dame Louise Casey DBE, CB Former reviewer of Social Cohesion Rt Hon Prof John Denham Former communities secretary and chair of the home affairs select committee Sir Sajid Javid Former home secretary and chancellor Sunder Katwala Director of British Future Explore more on these topics Michael Gove UK security and counter-terrorism Conservatives Priti Patel Sajid Javid Amber Rudd news Share Reuse this content Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Three Tory ex-home secretaries warn against politicising anti-extremism This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Intervention by Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd just before Michael Gove unveils official definition of extremism ‘An appalling direction’: UK activists criticise plans to redefine extremism Leading counter-terror and extremism experts, including three former Conservative home secretaries, have warned senior politicians against using extremism to score political points, as the communities secretary, Michael Gove , prepares to announce his controversial new anti-extremism plan. Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd are among a dozen signatories to a joint statement warning about the risks of politicising anti-extremism, just days before the communities secretary unveils his proposals. Others who signed the statement include Brendan Cox, the widower of the MP Jo Cox and co-founder of Survivors Against Terror, Neil Basu, the former head of counter-terrorism policing, and Richard Dannatt, the former chief of the general staff. The warning comes days before Gove is set to publish the government’s new official definition of extremism, which critics say will be so broad that it risks exacerbating community tensions and leaves ministers open to legal challenge . The statement said: “In the run-up to a general election, it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short-term tactical advantage. “We urge the Labour party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election.” Patel told the Guardian: “It is really important that we do not malign the wrong people through the wrong definitions. We haven’t seen anything yet from the government, but it is easy, as we have seen historically, to hide behind labels or definitions which sometimes end up being counterproductive. “None of this should ever be political. It has to strike the right balance between free speech and how we bring communities together.” Her warning was echoed by Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Hall did not sign the statement, but told the Guardian: “The proposed definition of extremism is very loose. It’s not being debated in parliament and effectively it is a government label. The distinction from the way we deal with terrorism couldn’t be clearer.” Gove’s new definition of extremism will classify individuals or groups as extremist if they seek to undermine Britain’s system of liberal democracy. The communities secretary is set to instruct ministers and officials to cut off contact with groups or individuals who breach the new definition, and local authorities are expected to follow suit. Gove told the Sunday Telegraph this weekend that he would seek to define extremism less by the actions of groups under scrutiny than by their underlying ideology. “The definition will … give practitioners more specificity on the ideologies, behaviour and groups of concern to support vital counter-radicalisation work,” he said. Gove has sought to present the new strategy in the light of the protests that have gripped the country since the 7 October attack by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli assault on Gaza. He singled out pro-Palestinian protesters for criticism in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph, focusing attention particularly on those who use the slogan “From the river to the sea”. “Let’s be clear that there is a difference between a cry for peace and the legitimisation of an extremist position which intimidates and leads to hate,” he said. Earlier this month, the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, gave a speech outside Downing Street in which he warned that there were “forces here at home trying to tear us apart”. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, endorsed Sunak’s comments, saying: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently.” However, Hall warned against focusing on ideology rather than action. “The proposed policy is about ideology,” he said. “But a lot of respected scholars and thinkers would say you go after action, because ultimately what matters is if someone acts violently or encourages violence.” The Observer revealed on Sunday that senior figures inside the government had warned Gove against pushing ahead with his plan to announce the new definition without consulting community groups or faith leaders. An internal briefing paper admitted that doing so would leave the government “at greater risk of legal challenge”, while others in government believe Gove is rushing out the proposals in the hope of damaging Labour ahead of a general election campaign. Cox, whose wife Jo was murdered in 2016 by a far-right extremist, told the Guardian: “Whatever the temptations, you can’t play politics around this. Tying it to the election timetable is the wrong approach.” The government has announced that more than £117m will be used to protect mosques, Muslim schools and community centres from hate attacks over the next four years. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said the money, which will be spent on measures including CCTV cameras, alarms and fencing, would give “reassurance and confidence to UK Muslims”. The announcement follows a £70m package for Jewish groups and comes in response to concerns that the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza is fuelling division in the UK. As Gove prepares to release his plan, he has been hit by the news that Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of the anti-Islamophobia project Tell Mama, will not become the new anti-Muslim hatred leader. Mughal was due to be unveiled in his new role on Monday, but told the Guardian on Sunday he had decided not to accept after receiving abuse online from extremist groups. He denied a report that he had been blocked by Downing Street amid accusations he previously suppressed a review of the Conservative party’s links with far-right groups. A government spokesperson said: “We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” The letter in full Keeping citizens safe is the first responsibility of government. So dealing with extremism is essential given the real threats from Islamist extremists, far right extremists and others. It requires as broad a consensus as possible if we are to be successful in marginalising and defeating it. In the run up to a general election it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short term tactical advantage. We urge the Labour Party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election. Our country is most effective in tackling extremism when it does it together. Neil Basu, QPM Former head of counter terrorism policing Rt Hon Amber Rudd Former home secretary The Lord Dannatt GCB, CBE, MC Former chief of the general staff Brendan Cox Co-founder of Survivors Against Terror Lord Walney Government advisor on political violence and disruption Rt Hon Priti Patel Former home secretary Lord Mann Independent advisor to the government on anti-semitism Dame Sara Khan Government independent advisor for social cohesion Dame Louise Casey DBE, CB Former reviewer of Social Cohesion Rt Hon Prof John Denham Former communities secretary and chair of the home affairs select committee Sir Sajid Javid Former home secretary and chancellor Sunder Katwala Director of British Future Explore more on these topics Michael Gove UK security and counter-terrorism Conservatives Priti Patel Sajid Javid Amber Rudd news Share Reuse this content Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian View image in fullscreen Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Critics of Michael Gove’s expected definition of extremism say it may increase community tensions and provoke legal challenges. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian This article is more than 1 year old Three Tory ex-home secretaries warn against politicising anti-extremism This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Three Tory ex-home secretaries warn against politicising anti-extremism This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Three Tory ex-home secretaries warn against politicising anti-extremism This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Exclusive: Intervention by Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd just before Michael Gove unveils official definition of extremism ‘An appalling direction’: UK activists criticise plans to redefine extremism Exclusive: Intervention by Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd just before Michael Gove unveils official definition of extremism ‘An appalling direction’: UK activists criticise plans to redefine extremism Exclusive: Intervention by Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd just before Michael Gove unveils official definition of extremism Leading counter-terror and extremism experts, including three former Conservative home secretaries, have warned senior politicians against using extremism to score political points, as the communities secretary, Michael Gove , prepares to announce his controversial new anti-extremism plan. Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd are among a dozen signatories to a joint statement warning about the risks of politicising anti-extremism, just days before the communities secretary unveils his proposals. Others who signed the statement include Brendan Cox, the widower of the MP Jo Cox and co-founder of Survivors Against Terror, Neil Basu, the former head of counter-terrorism policing, and Richard Dannatt, the former chief of the general staff. The warning comes days before Gove is set to publish the government’s new official definition of extremism, which critics say will be so broad that it risks exacerbating community tensions and leaves ministers open to legal challenge . The statement said: “In the run-up to a general election, it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short-term tactical advantage. “We urge the Labour party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election.” Patel told the Guardian: “It is really important that we do not malign the wrong people through the wrong definitions. We haven’t seen anything yet from the government, but it is easy, as we have seen historically, to hide behind labels or definitions which sometimes end up being counterproductive. “None of this should ever be political. It has to strike the right balance between free speech and how we bring communities together.” Her warning was echoed by Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Hall did not sign the statement, but told the Guardian: “The proposed definition of extremism is very loose. It’s not being debated in parliament and effectively it is a government label. The distinction from the way we deal with terrorism couldn’t be clearer.” Gove’s new definition of extremism will classify individuals or groups as extremist if they seek to undermine Britain’s system of liberal democracy. The communities secretary is set to instruct ministers and officials to cut off contact with groups or individuals who breach the new definition, and local authorities are expected to follow suit. Gove told the Sunday Telegraph this weekend that he would seek to define extremism less by the actions of groups under scrutiny than by their underlying ideology. “The definition will … give practitioners more specificity on the ideologies, behaviour and groups of concern to support vital counter-radicalisation work,” he said. Gove has sought to present the new strategy in the light of the protests that have gripped the country since the 7 October attack by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli assault on Gaza. He singled out pro-Palestinian protesters for criticism in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph, focusing attention particularly on those who use the slogan “From the river to the sea”. “Let’s be clear that there is a difference between a cry for peace and the legitimisation of an extremist position which intimidates and leads to hate,” he said. Earlier this month, the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, gave a speech outside Downing Street in which he warned that there were “forces here at home trying to tear us apart”. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, endorsed Sunak’s comments, saying: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently.” However, Hall warned against focusing on ideology rather than action. “The proposed policy is about ideology,” he said. “But a lot of respected scholars and thinkers would say you go after action, because ultimately what matters is if someone acts violently or encourages violence.” The Observer revealed on Sunday that senior figures inside the government had warned Gove against pushing ahead with his plan to announce the new definition without consulting community groups or faith leaders. An internal briefing paper admitted that doing so would leave the government “at greater risk of legal challenge”, while others in government believe Gove is rushing out the proposals in the hope of damaging Labour ahead of a general election campaign. Cox, whose wife Jo was murdered in 2016 by a far-right extremist, told the Guardian: “Whatever the temptations, you can’t play politics around this. Tying it to the election timetable is the wrong approach.” The government has announced that more than £117m will be used to protect mosques, Muslim schools and community centres from hate attacks over the next four years. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said the money, which will be spent on measures including CCTV cameras, alarms and fencing, would give “reassurance and confidence to UK Muslims”. The announcement follows a £70m package for Jewish groups and comes in response to concerns that the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza is fuelling division in the UK. As Gove prepares to release his plan, he has been hit by the news that Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of the anti-Islamophobia project Tell Mama, will not become the new anti-Muslim hatred leader. Mughal was due to be unveiled in his new role on Monday, but told the Guardian on Sunday he had decided not to accept after receiving abuse online from extremist groups. He denied a report that he had been blocked by Downing Street amid accusations he previously suppressed a review of the Conservative party’s links with far-right groups. A government spokesperson said: “We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” The letter in full Keeping citizens safe is the first responsibility of government. So dealing with extremism is essential given the real threats from Islamist extremists, far right extremists and others. It requires as broad a consensus as possible if we are to be successful in marginalising and defeating it. In the run up to a general election it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short term tactical advantage. We urge the Labour Party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election. Our country is most effective in tackling extremism when it does it together. Neil Basu, QPM Former head of counter terrorism policing Rt Hon Amber Rudd Former home secretary The Lord Dannatt GCB, CBE, MC Former chief of the general staff Brendan Cox Co-founder of Survivors Against Terror Lord Walney Government advisor on political violence and disruption Rt Hon Priti Patel Former home secretary Lord Mann Independent advisor to the government on anti-semitism Dame Sara Khan Government independent advisor for social cohesion Dame Louise Casey DBE, CB Former reviewer of Social Cohesion Rt Hon Prof John Denham Former communities secretary and chair of the home affairs select committee Sir Sajid Javid Former home secretary and chancellor Sunder Katwala Director of British Future Explore more on these topics Michael Gove UK security and counter-terrorism Conservatives Priti Patel Sajid Javid Amber Rudd news Share Reuse this content Leading counter-terror and extremism experts, including three former Conservative home secretaries, have warned senior politicians against using extremism to score political points, as the communities secretary, Michael Gove , prepares to announce his controversial new anti-extremism plan. Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd are among a dozen signatories to a joint statement warning about the risks of politicising anti-extremism, just days before the communities secretary unveils his proposals. Others who signed the statement include Brendan Cox, the widower of the MP Jo Cox and co-founder of Survivors Against Terror, Neil Basu, the former head of counter-terrorism policing, and Richard Dannatt, the former chief of the general staff. The warning comes days before Gove is set to publish the government’s new official definition of extremism, which critics say will be so broad that it risks exacerbating community tensions and leaves ministers open to legal challenge . The statement said: “In the run-up to a general election, it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short-term tactical advantage. “We urge the Labour party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election.” Patel told the Guardian: “It is really important that we do not malign the wrong people through the wrong definitions. We haven’t seen anything yet from the government, but it is easy, as we have seen historically, to hide behind labels or definitions which sometimes end up being counterproductive. “None of this should ever be political. It has to strike the right balance between free speech and how we bring communities together.” Her warning was echoed by Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Hall did not sign the statement, but told the Guardian: “The proposed definition of extremism is very loose. It’s not being debated in parliament and effectively it is a government label. The distinction from the way we deal with terrorism couldn’t be clearer.” Gove’s new definition of extremism will classify individuals or groups as extremist if they seek to undermine Britain’s system of liberal democracy. The communities secretary is set to instruct ministers and officials to cut off contact with groups or individuals who breach the new definition, and local authorities are expected to follow suit. Gove told the Sunday Telegraph this weekend that he would seek to define extremism less by the actions of groups under scrutiny than by their underlying ideology. “The definition will … give practitioners more specificity on the ideologies, behaviour and groups of concern to support vital counter-radicalisation work,” he said. Gove has sought to present the new strategy in the light of the protests that have gripped the country since the 7 October attack by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli assault on Gaza. He singled out pro-Palestinian protesters for criticism in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph, focusing attention particularly on those who use the slogan “From the river to the sea”. “Let’s be clear that there is a difference between a cry for peace and the legitimisation of an extremist position which intimidates and leads to hate,” he said. Earlier this month, the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, gave a speech outside Downing Street in which he warned that there were “forces here at home trying to tear us apart”. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, endorsed Sunak’s comments, saying: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently.” However, Hall warned against focusing on ideology rather than action. “The proposed policy is about ideology,” he said. “But a lot of respected scholars and thinkers would say you go after action, because ultimately what matters is if someone acts violently or encourages violence.” The Observer revealed on Sunday that senior figures inside the government had warned Gove against pushing ahead with his plan to announce the new definition without consulting community groups or faith leaders. An internal briefing paper admitted that doing so would leave the government “at greater risk of legal challenge”, while others in government believe Gove is rushing out the proposals in the hope of damaging Labour ahead of a general election campaign. Cox, whose wife Jo was murdered in 2016 by a far-right extremist, told the Guardian: “Whatever the temptations, you can’t play politics around this. Tying it to the election timetable is the wrong approach.” The government has announced that more than £117m will be used to protect mosques, Muslim schools and community centres from hate attacks over the next four years. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said the money, which will be spent on measures including CCTV cameras, alarms and fencing, would give “reassurance and confidence to UK Muslims”. The announcement follows a £70m package for Jewish groups and comes in response to concerns that the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza is fuelling division in the UK. As Gove prepares to release his plan, he has been hit by the news that Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of the anti-Islamophobia project Tell Mama, will not become the new anti-Muslim hatred leader. Mughal was due to be unveiled in his new role on Monday, but told the Guardian on Sunday he had decided not to accept after receiving abuse online from extremist groups. He denied a report that he had been blocked by Downing Street amid accusations he previously suppressed a review of the Conservative party’s links with far-right groups. A government spokesperson said: “We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” The letter in full Keeping citizens safe is the first responsibility of government. So dealing with extremism is essential given the real threats from Islamist extremists, far right extremists and others. It requires as broad a consensus as possible if we are to be successful in marginalising and defeating it. In the run up to a general election it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short term tactical advantage. We urge the Labour Party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election. Our country is most effective in tackling extremism when it does it together. Neil Basu, QPM Former head of counter terrorism policing Rt Hon Amber Rudd Former home secretary The Lord Dannatt GCB, CBE, MC Former chief of the general staff Brendan Cox Co-founder of Survivors Against Terror Lord Walney Government advisor on political violence and disruption Rt Hon Priti Patel Former home secretary Lord Mann Independent advisor to the government on anti-semitism Dame Sara Khan Government independent advisor for social cohesion Dame Louise Casey DBE, CB Former reviewer of Social Cohesion Rt Hon Prof John Denham Former communities secretary and chair of the home affairs select committee Sir Sajid Javid Former home secretary and chancellor Sunder Katwala Director of British Future Explore more on these topics Michael Gove UK security and counter-terrorism Conservatives Priti Patel Sajid Javid Amber Rudd news Share Reuse this content Leading counter-terror and extremism experts, including three former Conservative home secretaries, have warned senior politicians against using extremism to score political points, as the communities secretary, Michael Gove , prepares to announce his controversial new anti-extremism plan. Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd are among a dozen signatories to a joint statement warning about the risks of politicising anti-extremism, just days before the communities secretary unveils his proposals. Others who signed the statement include Brendan Cox, the widower of the MP Jo Cox and co-founder of Survivors Against Terror, Neil Basu, the former head of counter-terrorism policing, and Richard Dannatt, the former chief of the general staff. The warning comes days before Gove is set to publish the government’s new official definition of extremism, which critics say will be so broad that it risks exacerbating community tensions and leaves ministers open to legal challenge . The statement said: “In the run-up to a general election, it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short-term tactical advantage. “We urge the Labour party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election.” Patel told the Guardian: “It is really important that we do not malign the wrong people through the wrong definitions. We haven’t seen anything yet from the government, but it is easy, as we have seen historically, to hide behind labels or definitions which sometimes end up being counterproductive. “None of this should ever be political. It has to strike the right balance between free speech and how we bring communities together.” Her warning was echoed by Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Hall did not sign the statement, but told the Guardian: “The proposed definition of extremism is very loose. It’s not being debated in parliament and effectively it is a government label. The distinction from the way we deal with terrorism couldn’t be clearer.” Gove’s new definition of extremism will classify individuals or groups as extremist if they seek to undermine Britain’s system of liberal democracy. The communities secretary is set to instruct ministers and officials to cut off contact with groups or individuals who breach the new definition, and local authorities are expected to follow suit. Gove told the Sunday Telegraph this weekend that he would seek to define extremism less by the actions of groups under scrutiny than by their underlying ideology. “The definition will … give practitioners more specificity on the ideologies, behaviour and groups of concern to support vital counter-radicalisation work,” he said. Gove has sought to present the new strategy in the light of the protests that have gripped the country since the 7 October attack by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli assault on Gaza. He singled out pro-Palestinian protesters for criticism in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph, focusing attention particularly on those who use the slogan “From the river to the sea”. “Let’s be clear that there is a difference between a cry for peace and the legitimisation of an extremist position which intimidates and leads to hate,” he said. Earlier this month, the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, gave a speech outside Downing Street in which he warned that there were “forces here at home trying to tear us apart”. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, endorsed Sunak’s comments, saying: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently.” However, Hall warned against focusing on ideology rather than action. “The proposed policy is about ideology,” he said. “But a lot of respected scholars and thinkers would say you go after action, because ultimately what matters is if someone acts violently or encourages violence.” The Observer revealed on Sunday that senior figures inside the government had warned Gove against pushing ahead with his plan to announce the new definition without consulting community groups or faith leaders. An internal briefing paper admitted that doing so would leave the government “at greater risk of legal challenge”, while others in government believe Gove is rushing out the proposals in the hope of damaging Labour ahead of a general election campaign. Cox, whose wife Jo was murdered in 2016 by a far-right extremist, told the Guardian: “Whatever the temptations, you can’t play politics around this. Tying it to the election timetable is the wrong approach.” The government has announced that more than £117m will be used to protect mosques, Muslim schools and community centres from hate attacks over the next four years. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said the money, which will be spent on measures including CCTV cameras, alarms and fencing, would give “reassurance and confidence to UK Muslims”. The announcement follows a £70m package for Jewish groups and comes in response to concerns that the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza is fuelling division in the UK. As Gove prepares to release his plan, he has been hit by the news that Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of the anti-Islamophobia project Tell Mama, will not become the new anti-Muslim hatred leader. Mughal was due to be unveiled in his new role on Monday, but told the Guardian on Sunday he had decided not to accept after receiving abuse online from extremist groups. He denied a report that he had been blocked by Downing Street amid accusations he previously suppressed a review of the Conservative party’s links with far-right groups. A government spokesperson said: “We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” The letter in full Keeping citizens safe is the first responsibility of government. So dealing with extremism is essential given the real threats from Islamist extremists, far right extremists and others. It requires as broad a consensus as possible if we are to be successful in marginalising and defeating it. In the run up to a general election it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short term tactical advantage. We urge the Labour Party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election. Our country is most effective in tackling extremism when it does it together. Neil Basu, QPM Former head of counter terrorism policing Rt Hon Amber Rudd Former home secretary The Lord Dannatt GCB, CBE, MC Former chief of the general staff Brendan Cox Co-founder of Survivors Against Terror Lord Walney Government advisor on political violence and disruption Rt Hon Priti Patel Former home secretary Lord Mann Independent advisor to the government on anti-semitism Dame Sara Khan Government independent advisor for social cohesion Dame Louise Casey DBE, CB Former reviewer of Social Cohesion Rt Hon Prof John Denham Former communities secretary and chair of the home affairs select committee Sir Sajid Javid Former home secretary and chancellor Sunder Katwala Director of British Future Leading counter-terror and extremism experts, including three former Conservative home secretaries, have warned senior politicians against using extremism to score political points, as the communities secretary, Michael Gove , prepares to announce his controversial new anti-extremism plan. Priti Patel, Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd are among a dozen signatories to a joint statement warning about the risks of politicising anti-extremism, just days before the communities secretary unveils his proposals. Others who signed the statement include Brendan Cox, the widower of the MP Jo Cox and co-founder of Survivors Against Terror, Neil Basu, the former head of counter-terrorism policing, and Richard Dannatt, the former chief of the general staff. The warning comes days before Gove is set to publish the government’s new official definition of extremism, which critics say will be so broad that it risks exacerbating community tensions and leaves ministers open to legal challenge . The statement said: “In the run-up to a general election, it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and that no political party uses the issue to seek short-term tactical advantage. “We urge the Labour party and the Conservative party to work together to build a shared understanding of extremism and a strategy to prevent it that can stand the test of time, no matter which party wins an election.” Patel told the Guardian: “It is really important that we do not malign the wrong people through the wrong definitions. We haven’t seen anything yet from the government, but it is easy, as we have seen historically, to hide behind labels or definitions which sometimes end up being counterproductive. “None of this should ever be political. It has to strike the right balance between free speech and how we bring communities together.” Her warning was echoed by Jonathan Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Hall did not sign the statement, but told the Guardian: “The proposed definition of extremism is very loose. It’s not being debated in parliament and effectively it is a government label. The distinction from the way we deal with terrorism couldn’t be clearer.” Gove’s new definition of extremism will classify individuals or groups as extremist if they seek to undermine Britain’s system of liberal democracy. The communities secretary is set to instruct ministers and officials to cut off contact with groups or individuals who breach the new definition, and local authorities are expected to follow suit. Gove told the Sunday Telegraph this weekend that he would seek to define extremism less by the actions of groups under scrutiny than by their underlying ideology. “The definition will … give practitioners more specificity on the ideologies, behaviour and groups of concern to support vital counter-radicalisation work,” he said. Gove has sought to present the new strategy in the light of the protests that have gripped the country since the 7 October attack by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli assault on Gaza. He singled out pro-Palestinian protesters for criticism in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph, focusing attention particularly on those who use the slogan “From the river to the sea”. “Let’s be clear that there is a difference between a cry for peace and the legitimisation of an extremist position which intimidates and leads to hate,” he said. Earlier this month, the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, gave a speech outside Downing Street in which he warned that there were “forces here at home trying to tear us apart”. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, endorsed Sunak’s comments, saying: “The prime minister is right to advocate unity and to condemn the unacceptable and intimidatory behaviour that we have seen recently.” However, Hall warned against focusing on ideology rather than action. “The proposed policy is about ideology,” he said. “But a lot of respected scholars and thinkers would say you go after action, because ultimately what matters is if someone acts violently or encourages violence.” The Observer revealed on Sunday that senior figures inside the government had warned Gove against pushing ahead with his plan to announce the new definition without consulting community groups or faith leaders. An internal briefing paper admitted that doing so would leave the government “at greater risk of legal challenge”, while others in government believe Gove is rushing out the proposals in the hope of damaging Labour ahead of a general election campaign. Cox, whose wife Jo was murdered in 2016 by a far-right extremist, told the Guardian: “Whatever the temptations, you can’t play politics around this. Tying it to the election timetable is the wrong approach.” The government has announced that more than £117m will be used to protect mosques, Muslim schools and community centres from hate attacks over the next four years. James Cleverly, the home secretary, said the money, which will be spent on measures including CCTV cameras, alarms and fencing, would give “reassurance and confidence to UK Muslims”. The announcement follows a £70m package for Jewish groups and comes in response to concerns that the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza is fuelling division in the UK. As Gove prepares to release his plan, he has been hit by the news that Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of the anti-Islamophobia project Tell Mama, will not become the new anti-Muslim hatred leader. Mughal was due to be unveiled in his new role on Monday, but told the Guardian on Sunday he had decided not to accept after receiving abuse online from extremist groups. He denied a report that he had been blocked by Downing Street amid accusations he previously suppressed a review of the Conservative party’s links with far-right groups. A government spokesperson said: “We are taking action to ensure that no extremist organisations or individuals are being given a platform by their actions and interactions with government. We will set out further details shortly.” The letter in full Keeping citizens safe is the first responsibility of government. So dealing with extremism is essential given the real threats from Islamist extremists, far right extremists and others. It requires as broad a consensus as possible if we are to be successful in marginalising and defeating it. In the run up to a general election it’s particularly important that that consensus is maintained and th
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Youth activists need protection against smear campaigns and arrests, says UN expert
Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP This article is more than 1 year old Youth activists need protection against smear campaigns and arrests, says UN expert This article is more than 1 year old Children and teenagers routinely denied access to support given to older activists against online and physical attacks, says report Children campaigning to save the planet and defend human rights must be taken seriously and better protected from online smear campaigns, arrests and physical attacks, a new report by a leading UN expert has found. Child and youth activists are at the forefront of human rights struggles globally but are routinely dismissed, excluded and denied access to support available to older activists, according to Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, who interviewed nearly 100 young people from 37 countries. ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial Read more Young people are particularly active in defending the climate and environment, and have spearheaded global movements such as Rise Up and Fridays for Future school strikes with Greta Thunberg in Sweden and Vanessa Nakate in Uganda, among others. “Climate change has been a huge driver for children and young people because they see that the planet is dying from lack of action by governments all over the world. It’s something they relate to because it directly affects them,” said Lawlor, who will present the first-of-its-kind report to the UN human rights council on Tuesday. Currently, more than half of the world’s population are under the age of 30, making it the largest generation of young people in history. Among them, some child and youth human rights defenders have been a direct victim of injustice, while others are drawn to activism by violence and other violations around them. “Child rights defenders, especially girls and gender-nonconforming children, and including child climate activists, have been facing growing repression in many countries,” the report says. In addition to organizing on climate and environmental issues, they are also at the forefront of campaigns to stop what they say is genocide in Gaza, end gun violence and violence against women and girls, and the fight for reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights. In Nigeria, Mariam Oyiza Aliyu founded an organization that has helped successfully reintegrated young women held by Boko Haram into their communities, and have won 55 cases of rape in court. In Argentina in 2018, a 15-year-old pro-choice activist was violently attacked on the street by two men, who cut her face with a razor and stated that she would be unable to walk down the street any more. They had previously threatened her on social media. In Uganda, children have been among those detained arbitrarily by police for protesting peacefully against an oil pipeline that will have devastating consequences for land, water and the climate. In 2021, Indian authorities arrested Disha Ravi, a 21-year-old activist who volunteered for Fridays for Future, on charges including sedition and criminal conspiracy. The authorities alleged that Ravi was the “key conspirator” in editing and sharing an online toolkit – also shared by Greta Thunberg – on social media which included information to help those seeking to peacefully support ongoing farmers’ protests . Yet Lawlor found that young human rights defenders – particularly children – are often not taken seriously, and don’t have access to things like funding or legal aid if they get into trouble. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Children don’t have agency. They feel like the human rights community itself is very ageist, and that governments haven’t put in place proper policies and child-friendly laws that will protect them and allow them to participate in decisions that affect them. “They are the ones looking to the future, but feel squeezed. They often do not feel heard or supported by the UN or even their own families, who can be terrified that involvement in human rights will put them in danger.” But despite the risks, child and youth human rights defenders are mobilizing worldwide to demand change on the biggest issues concerning humanity today. Lawlor said: “They see injustice, and they feel they have to respond.” Explore more on these topics Young people Children Human rights United Nations Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP This article is more than 1 year old Youth activists need protection against smear campaigns and arrests, says UN expert This article is more than 1 year old Children and teenagers routinely denied access to support given to older activists against online and physical attacks, says report Children campaigning to save the planet and defend human rights must be taken seriously and better protected from online smear campaigns, arrests and physical attacks, a new report by a leading UN expert has found. Child and youth activists are at the forefront of human rights struggles globally but are routinely dismissed, excluded and denied access to support available to older activists, according to Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, who interviewed nearly 100 young people from 37 countries. ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial Read more Young people are particularly active in defending the climate and environment, and have spearheaded global movements such as Rise Up and Fridays for Future school strikes with Greta Thunberg in Sweden and Vanessa Nakate in Uganda, among others. “Climate change has been a huge driver for children and young people because they see that the planet is dying from lack of action by governments all over the world. It’s something they relate to because it directly affects them,” said Lawlor, who will present the first-of-its-kind report to the UN human rights council on Tuesday. Currently, more than half of the world’s population are under the age of 30, making it the largest generation of young people in history. Among them, some child and youth human rights defenders have been a direct victim of injustice, while others are drawn to activism by violence and other violations around them. “Child rights defenders, especially girls and gender-nonconforming children, and including child climate activists, have been facing growing repression in many countries,” the report says. In addition to organizing on climate and environmental issues, they are also at the forefront of campaigns to stop what they say is genocide in Gaza, end gun violence and violence against women and girls, and the fight for reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights. In Nigeria, Mariam Oyiza Aliyu founded an organization that has helped successfully reintegrated young women held by Boko Haram into their communities, and have won 55 cases of rape in court. In Argentina in 2018, a 15-year-old pro-choice activist was violently attacked on the street by two men, who cut her face with a razor and stated that she would be unable to walk down the street any more. They had previously threatened her on social media. In Uganda, children have been among those detained arbitrarily by police for protesting peacefully against an oil pipeline that will have devastating consequences for land, water and the climate. In 2021, Indian authorities arrested Disha Ravi, a 21-year-old activist who volunteered for Fridays for Future, on charges including sedition and criminal conspiracy. The authorities alleged that Ravi was the “key conspirator” in editing and sharing an online toolkit – also shared by Greta Thunberg – on social media which included information to help those seeking to peacefully support ongoing farmers’ protests . Yet Lawlor found that young human rights defenders – particularly children – are often not taken seriously, and don’t have access to things like funding or legal aid if they get into trouble. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Children don’t have agency. They feel like the human rights community itself is very ageist, and that governments haven’t put in place proper policies and child-friendly laws that will protect them and allow them to participate in decisions that affect them. “They are the ones looking to the future, but feel squeezed. They often do not feel heard or supported by the UN or even their own families, who can be terrified that involvement in human rights will put them in danger.” But despite the risks, child and youth human rights defenders are mobilizing worldwide to demand change on the biggest issues concerning humanity today. Lawlor said: “They see injustice, and they feel they have to respond.” Explore more on these topics Young people Children Human rights United Nations Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP View image in fullscreen Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP Vanessa Nakate and others at a Fridays for Future protest at the Cop27 UN climate summit on 11 November 2022, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP This article is more than 1 year old Youth activists need protection against smear campaigns and arrests, says UN expert This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Youth activists need protection against smear campaigns and arrests, says UN expert This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Youth activists need protection against smear campaigns and arrests, says UN expert This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Children and teenagers routinely denied access to support given to older activists against online and physical attacks, says report Children and teenagers routinely denied access to support given to older activists against online and physical attacks, says report Children and teenagers routinely denied access to support given to older activists against online and physical attacks, says report Children campaigning to save the planet and defend human rights must be taken seriously and better protected from online smear campaigns, arrests and physical attacks, a new report by a leading UN expert has found. Child and youth activists are at the forefront of human rights struggles globally but are routinely dismissed, excluded and denied access to support available to older activists, according to Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, who interviewed nearly 100 young people from 37 countries. ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial Read more Young people are particularly active in defending the climate and environment, and have spearheaded global movements such as Rise Up and Fridays for Future school strikes with Greta Thunberg in Sweden and Vanessa Nakate in Uganda, among others. “Climate change has been a huge driver for children and young people because they see that the planet is dying from lack of action by governments all over the world. It’s something they relate to because it directly affects them,” said Lawlor, who will present the first-of-its-kind report to the UN human rights council on Tuesday. Currently, more than half of the world’s population are under the age of 30, making it the largest generation of young people in history. Among them, some child and youth human rights defenders have been a direct victim of injustice, while others are drawn to activism by violence and other violations around them. “Child rights defenders, especially girls and gender-nonconforming children, and including child climate activists, have been facing growing repression in many countries,” the report says. In addition to organizing on climate and environmental issues, they are also at the forefront of campaigns to stop what they say is genocide in Gaza, end gun violence and violence against women and girls, and the fight for reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights. In Nigeria, Mariam Oyiza Aliyu founded an organization that has helped successfully reintegrated young women held by Boko Haram into their communities, and have won 55 cases of rape in court. In Argentina in 2018, a 15-year-old pro-choice activist was violently attacked on the street by two men, who cut her face with a razor and stated that she would be unable to walk down the street any more. They had previously threatened her on social media. In Uganda, children have been among those detained arbitrarily by police for protesting peacefully against an oil pipeline that will have devastating consequences for land, water and the climate. In 2021, Indian authorities arrested Disha Ravi, a 21-year-old activist who volunteered for Fridays for Future, on charges including sedition and criminal conspiracy. The authorities alleged that Ravi was the “key conspirator” in editing and sharing an online toolkit – also shared by Greta Thunberg – on social media which included information to help those seeking to peacefully support ongoing farmers’ protests . Yet Lawlor found that young human rights defenders – particularly children – are often not taken seriously, and don’t have access to things like funding or legal aid if they get into trouble. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Children don’t have agency. They feel like the human rights community itself is very ageist, and that governments haven’t put in place proper policies and child-friendly laws that will protect them and allow them to participate in decisions that affect them. “They are the ones looking to the future, but feel squeezed. They often do not feel heard or supported by the UN or even their own families, who can be terrified that involvement in human rights will put them in danger.” But despite the risks, child and youth human rights defenders are mobilizing worldwide to demand change on the biggest issues concerning humanity today. Lawlor said: “They see injustice, and they feel they have to respond.” Explore more on these topics Young people Children Human rights United Nations Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Children campaigning to save the planet and defend human rights must be taken seriously and better protected from online smear campaigns, arrests and physical attacks, a new report by a leading UN expert has found. Child and youth activists are at the forefront of human rights struggles globally but are routinely dismissed, excluded and denied access to support available to older activists, according to Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, who interviewed nearly 100 young people from 37 countries. ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial Read more Young people are particularly active in defending the climate and environment, and have spearheaded global movements such as Rise Up and Fridays for Future school strikes with Greta Thunberg in Sweden and Vanessa Nakate in Uganda, among others. “Climate change has been a huge driver for children and young people because they see that the planet is dying from lack of action by governments all over the world. It’s something they relate to because it directly affects them,” said Lawlor, who will present the first-of-its-kind report to the UN human rights council on Tuesday. Currently, more than half of the world’s population are under the age of 30, making it the largest generation of young people in history. Among them, some child and youth human rights defenders have been a direct victim of injustice, while others are drawn to activism by violence and other violations around them. “Child rights defenders, especially girls and gender-nonconforming children, and including child climate activists, have been facing growing repression in many countries,” the report says. In addition to organizing on climate and environmental issues, they are also at the forefront of campaigns to stop what they say is genocide in Gaza, end gun violence and violence against women and girls, and the fight for reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights. In Nigeria, Mariam Oyiza Aliyu founded an organization that has helped successfully reintegrated young women held by Boko Haram into their communities, and have won 55 cases of rape in court. In Argentina in 2018, a 15-year-old pro-choice activist was violently attacked on the street by two men, who cut her face with a razor and stated that she would be unable to walk down the street any more. They had previously threatened her on social media. In Uganda, children have been among those detained arbitrarily by police for protesting peacefully against an oil pipeline that will have devastating consequences for land, water and the climate. In 2021, Indian authorities arrested Disha Ravi, a 21-year-old activist who volunteered for Fridays for Future, on charges including sedition and criminal conspiracy. The authorities alleged that Ravi was the “key conspirator” in editing and sharing an online toolkit – also shared by Greta Thunberg – on social media which included information to help those seeking to peacefully support ongoing farmers’ protests . Yet Lawlor found that young human rights defenders – particularly children – are often not taken seriously, and don’t have access to things like funding or legal aid if they get into trouble. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Children don’t have agency. They feel like the human rights community itself is very ageist, and that governments haven’t put in place proper policies and child-friendly laws that will protect them and allow them to participate in decisions that affect them. “They are the ones looking to the future, but feel squeezed. They often do not feel heard or supported by the UN or even their own families, who can be terrified that involvement in human rights will put them in danger.” But despite the risks, child and youth human rights defenders are mobilizing worldwide to demand change on the biggest issues concerning humanity today. Lawlor said: “They see injustice, and they feel they have to respond.” Explore more on these topics Young people Children Human rights United Nations Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Children campaigning to save the planet and defend human rights must be taken seriously and better protected from online smear campaigns, arrests and physical attacks, a new report by a leading UN expert has found. Child and youth activists are at the forefront of human rights struggles globally but are routinely dismissed, excluded and denied access to support available to older activists, according to Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, who interviewed nearly 100 young people from 37 countries. ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial Read more Young people are particularly active in defending the climate and environment, and have spearheaded global movements such as Rise Up and Fridays for Future school strikes with Greta Thunberg in Sweden and Vanessa Nakate in Uganda, among others. “Climate change has been a huge driver for children and young people because they see that the planet is dying from lack of action by governments all over the world. It’s something they relate to because it directly affects them,” said Lawlor, who will present the first-of-its-kind report to the UN human rights council on Tuesday. Currently, more than half of the world’s population are under the age of 30, making it the largest generation of young people in history. Among them, some child and youth human rights defenders have been a direct victim of injustice, while others are drawn to activism by violence and other violations around them. “Child rights defenders, especially girls and gender-nonconforming children, and including child climate activists, have been facing growing repression in many countries,” the report says. In addition to organizing on climate and environmental issues, they are also at the forefront of campaigns to stop what they say is genocide in Gaza, end gun violence and violence against women and girls, and the fight for reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights. In Nigeria, Mariam Oyiza Aliyu founded an organization that has helped successfully reintegrated young women held by Boko Haram into their communities, and have won 55 cases of rape in court. In Argentina in 2018, a 15-year-old pro-choice activist was violently attacked on the street by two men, who cut her face with a razor and stated that she would be unable to walk down the street any more. They had previously threatened her on social media. In Uganda, children have been among those detained arbitrarily by police for protesting peacefully against an oil pipeline that will have devastating consequences for land, water and the climate. In 2021, Indian authorities arrested Disha Ravi, a 21-year-old activist who volunteered for Fridays for Future, on charges including sedition and criminal conspiracy. The authorities alleged that Ravi was the “key conspirator” in editing and sharing an online toolkit – also shared by Greta Thunberg – on social media which included information to help those seeking to peacefully support ongoing farmers’ protests . Yet Lawlor found that young human rights defenders – particularly children – are often not taken seriously, and don’t have access to things like funding or legal aid if they get into trouble. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Children don’t have agency. They feel like the human rights community itself is very ageist, and that governments haven’t put in place proper policies and child-friendly laws that will protect them and allow them to participate in decisions that affect them. “They are the ones looking to the future, but feel squeezed. They often do not feel heard or supported by the UN or even their own families, who can be terrified that involvement in human rights will put them in danger.” But despite the risks, child and youth human rights defenders are mobilizing worldwide to demand change on the biggest issues concerning humanity today. Lawlor said: “They see injustice, and they feel they have to respond.” Children campaigning to save the planet and defend human rights must be taken seriously and better protected from online smear campaigns, arrests and physical attacks, a new report by a leading UN expert has found. Child and youth activists are at the forefront of human rights struggles globally but are routinely dismissed, excluded and denied access to support available to older activists, according to Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, who interviewed nearly 100 young people from 37 countries. ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial Read more Young people are particularly active in defending the climate and environment, and have spearheaded global movements such as Rise Up and Fridays for Future school strikes with Greta Thunberg in Sweden and Vanessa Nakate in Uganda, among others. “Climate change has been a huge driver for children and young people because they see that the planet is dying from lack of action by governments all over the world. It’s something they relate to because it directly affects them,” said Lawlor, who will present the first-of-its-kind report to the UN human rights council on Tuesday. Currently, more than half of the world’s population are under the age of 30, making it the largest generation of young people in history. Among them, some child and youth human rights defenders have been a direct victim of injustice, while others are drawn to activism by violence and other violations around them. “Child rights defenders, especially girls and gender-nonconforming children, and including child climate activists, have been facing growing repression in many countries,” the report says. In addition to organizing on climate and environmental issues, they are also at the forefront of campaigns to stop what they say is genocide in Gaza, end gun violence and violence against women and girls, and the fight for reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights. In Nigeria, Mariam Oyiza Aliyu founded an organization that has helped successfully reintegrated young women held by Boko Haram into their communities, and have won 55 cases of rape in court. In Argentina in 2018, a 15-year-old pro-choice activist was violently attacked on the street by two men, who cut her face with a razor and stated that she would be unable to walk down the street any more. They had previously threatened her on social media. In Uganda, children have been among those detained arbitrarily by police for protesting peacefully against an oil pipeline that will have devastating consequences for land, water and the climate. In 2021, Indian authorities arrested Disha Ravi, a 21-year-old activist who volunteered for Fridays for Future, on charges including sedition and criminal conspiracy. The authorities alleged that Ravi was the “key conspirator” in editing and sharing an online toolkit – also shared by Greta Thunberg – on social media which included information to help those seeking to peacefully support ongoing farmers’ protests . Yet Lawlor found that young human rights defenders – particularly children – are often not taken seriously, and don’t have access to things like funding or legal aid if they get into trouble. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion “Children don’t have agency. They feel like the human rights community itself is very ageist, and that governments haven’t put in place proper policies and child-friendly laws that will protect them and allow them to participate in decisions that affect them. “They are the ones looking to the future, but feel squeezed. They often do not feel heard or supported by the UN or even their own families, who can be terrified that involvement in human rights will put them in danger.” But despite the risks, child and youth human rights defenders are mobilizing worldwide to demand change on the biggest issues concerning humanity today. Lawlor said: “They see injustice, and they feel they have to respond.” Children campaigning to save the planet and defend human rights must be taken seriously and better protected from online smear campaigns, arrests and physical attacks, a new report by a leading UN expert has found. Child and youth activists are at the forefront of human rights struggles globally but are routinely dismissed, excluded and denied access to support available to older activists, according to Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, who interviewed nearly 100 young people from 37 countries. ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial Read more ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial Read more ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial Read more ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial ‘Gamechanger’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial Young people are particularly active in defending the climate and environment, and have spearheaded global movements such as Rise Up and Fridays for Future school strikes with Greta Thunberg in Sweden and Vanessa Nakate in Uganda, among others. “Climate change has been a huge driver for children and young people because they see that the planet is dying from lack of action by governments all over the world. It’s something they relate to because it directly affects them,” said Lawlor, who will present the first-of-its-kind report to the UN human rights council on Tuesday. Currently, more than half of the world’s population are under the age of 30, making it the largest generation of young people in history. Among them, some child and youth human rights defenders have been a direct victim of injustice, while others are drawn to activism by violence and other violations around them. “Child rights defenders, especially girls and gender-nonconforming children, and including child climate activists, have been facing growing repression in many countries,” the report says. In addition to organizing on climate and environmental issues, they are also at the forefront of campaigns to stop what they say is genocide in Gaza, end gun violence and violence against women and girls, and the fight for reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights. In Nigeria, Mariam Oyiza Aliyu founded an organization that has helped successfully reintegrated young women held by Boko Haram into their communities, and have won 55 cases of rape in court. In Argentina in 2018, a 15-year-old pro-choice activist was violently attacked on the street by two men, who cut her face with a razor and stated that she would be unable to walk down the street any more. They had previously threatened her on social media. In Uganda, children have been among those detained arbitrarily by police for protesting peacefully against an oil pipeline that will have devastating consequences for land, water and the climate. In 2021, Indian authorities arrested Disha Ravi, a 21-year-old activist who volunteered for Fridays for Future, on charges including sedition and criminal conspiracy. The authorities alleged that Ravi was the “key conspirator” in editing and sharing an online toolkit – also shared by Greta Thunberg – on social media which included information to help those seeking to peacefully support ongoing farmers’ protests . Yet Lawlor found that young human rights defenders – particularly children – are often not taken seriously, and don’t have access to things like funding or legal aid if they get into trouble. “Children don’t have agency. They feel like the human rights community itself is very ageist, and that governments haven’t put in place proper policies and child-friendly laws that will protect them and allow them to participate in decisions that affect them. “They are the ones looking to the future, but feel squeezed. They often do not feel heard or supported by the UN or even their own families, who can be terrified that involvement in human rights will put them in danger.” But despite the risks, child and youth human rights defenders are mobilizing worldwide to demand change on the biggest issues concerning humanity today. Lawlor said: “They see injustice, and they feel they have to respond.” Explore more on these topics Young people Children Human rights United Nations Climate crisis news Share Reuse this content Young people Children Human rights United Nations Climate crisis news |
Protesters to hold mass trespass of Cirencester Park over charging plans
Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy View image in fullscreen Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Protesters to hold mass trespass of Cirencester Park over charging plans This article is more than 1 year old Right to roam campaigners organise demonstration amid anger at Bathurst Estate’s introduction of £4 fee to visit park Hundreds of people are expected at a mass trespass of Cirencester Park in protest against the introduction of charges and electronic gates for pedestrians and joggers. Local people are fighting the charges, the first in 329 years since the landscaped parkland, part of the 6,300-hectare (15,500-acre) Bathurst Estate , was established beside the Cotswolds town. The Right to Roam campaign is organising the trespass on 17 March – two days after the charges begin – with activities for children and speeches on the Bathurst family’s historic links to the slave trade. David Watts, who lives nearby and often runs in the park, said: “Along with many other residents, I am really upset and disappointed about the new access restrictions and pay-walling of Cirencester Park. For many of us, Cecily Hill is not just an entrance to the park but a gateway to thousands of acres of English countryside which have been free to roam for centuries.” Juliette Morton, who is planning to join the protest, said: “I lived in a little road at the end of the park and kind of grew up in the park. We had a tiny backyard so the park was where I spent my time – it was our playground, we climbed trees and played around in the stables and outhouses. It was the main green space we had access to as kids in the town. “It’s part of the very fabric of people’s lives. If Covid showed us anything, it showed that we need access to green space. Taxpayers have been paying for the upkeep of that park for centuries. It’s ours already. I’m quite cross about it.” With the installation of a ticket booth and electronic gates on the main entrances, visitors must pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Local people can apply for a photo-card giving them free access for a deposit of £10. Morton added: “It might sound ridiculous but I know people who live in the town who can’t afford the £10 deposit.” According to campaigners, the Bathurst Estate has received millions of pounds in farm subsidies in recent years and the family fortunes ultimately rest on the slave trader Benjamin Bathurst, a deputy governor of the East India Company and the Royal Africa Company who purchased Cirencester Park in 1695 . Jon Moses of the Right to Roam campaign said: “In 1695, the 100,000 slaves traded by the Royal African Company paid an appalling price for the purchase of the Bathurst Estate. Their memory should be honoured with reparations, not new commercial ventures aimed at exploiting people going for a walk. “These cases are an abrupt reminder how badly access reform is needed in England – and how much of the land inequality we confront today is rooted in the immoral acts of our past.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion According to a statement from Lord Bathurst, the pass will support the restoration of the Broad Avenue and the maintenance of pathways, woodlands, grasslands and monuments in the park. Bathurst said: “The physical and health benefits that people and their dogs get from the restorative powers of being in the natural environment of Cirencester Park is as important today as when the park was first established. We are delighted to continue to share Cirencester Park with the local community and visitors to the area.” A spokesperson for the Bathurst Estate added: “The estate takes the safety of the park’s wildlife, visitors, staff and local residents seriously; we are in touch with Right to Roam about their plans with a view that any intended trespass is conducted with the same consideration.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Environmental activism Protest England Rural affairs news Share Reuse this content Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy View image in fullscreen Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Protesters to hold mass trespass of Cirencester Park over charging plans This article is more than 1 year old Right to roam campaigners organise demonstration amid anger at Bathurst Estate’s introduction of £4 fee to visit park Hundreds of people are expected at a mass trespass of Cirencester Park in protest against the introduction of charges and electronic gates for pedestrians and joggers. Local people are fighting the charges, the first in 329 years since the landscaped parkland, part of the 6,300-hectare (15,500-acre) Bathurst Estate , was established beside the Cotswolds town. The Right to Roam campaign is organising the trespass on 17 March – two days after the charges begin – with activities for children and speeches on the Bathurst family’s historic links to the slave trade. David Watts, who lives nearby and often runs in the park, said: “Along with many other residents, I am really upset and disappointed about the new access restrictions and pay-walling of Cirencester Park. For many of us, Cecily Hill is not just an entrance to the park but a gateway to thousands of acres of English countryside which have been free to roam for centuries.” Juliette Morton, who is planning to join the protest, said: “I lived in a little road at the end of the park and kind of grew up in the park. We had a tiny backyard so the park was where I spent my time – it was our playground, we climbed trees and played around in the stables and outhouses. It was the main green space we had access to as kids in the town. “It’s part of the very fabric of people’s lives. If Covid showed us anything, it showed that we need access to green space. Taxpayers have been paying for the upkeep of that park for centuries. It’s ours already. I’m quite cross about it.” With the installation of a ticket booth and electronic gates on the main entrances, visitors must pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Local people can apply for a photo-card giving them free access for a deposit of £10. Morton added: “It might sound ridiculous but I know people who live in the town who can’t afford the £10 deposit.” According to campaigners, the Bathurst Estate has received millions of pounds in farm subsidies in recent years and the family fortunes ultimately rest on the slave trader Benjamin Bathurst, a deputy governor of the East India Company and the Royal Africa Company who purchased Cirencester Park in 1695 . Jon Moses of the Right to Roam campaign said: “In 1695, the 100,000 slaves traded by the Royal African Company paid an appalling price for the purchase of the Bathurst Estate. Their memory should be honoured with reparations, not new commercial ventures aimed at exploiting people going for a walk. “These cases are an abrupt reminder how badly access reform is needed in England – and how much of the land inequality we confront today is rooted in the immoral acts of our past.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion According to a statement from Lord Bathurst, the pass will support the restoration of the Broad Avenue and the maintenance of pathways, woodlands, grasslands and monuments in the park. Bathurst said: “The physical and health benefits that people and their dogs get from the restorative powers of being in the natural environment of Cirencester Park is as important today as when the park was first established. We are delighted to continue to share Cirencester Park with the local community and visitors to the area.” A spokesperson for the Bathurst Estate added: “The estate takes the safety of the park’s wildlife, visitors, staff and local residents seriously; we are in touch with Right to Roam about their plans with a view that any intended trespass is conducted with the same consideration.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Environmental activism Protest England Rural affairs news Share Reuse this content Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy View image in fullscreen Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy View image in fullscreen Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy View image in fullscreen Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy View image in fullscreen Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy Cirencester Park on the Bathurst Estate. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists will have to pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Photograph: Shaun A Daley/Alamy This article is more than 1 year old Protesters to hold mass trespass of Cirencester Park over charging plans This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Protesters to hold mass trespass of Cirencester Park over charging plans This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Protesters to hold mass trespass of Cirencester Park over charging plans This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Right to roam campaigners organise demonstration amid anger at Bathurst Estate’s introduction of £4 fee to visit park Right to roam campaigners organise demonstration amid anger at Bathurst Estate’s introduction of £4 fee to visit park Right to roam campaigners organise demonstration amid anger at Bathurst Estate’s introduction of £4 fee to visit park Hundreds of people are expected at a mass trespass of Cirencester Park in protest against the introduction of charges and electronic gates for pedestrians and joggers. Local people are fighting the charges, the first in 329 years since the landscaped parkland, part of the 6,300-hectare (15,500-acre) Bathurst Estate , was established beside the Cotswolds town. The Right to Roam campaign is organising the trespass on 17 March – two days after the charges begin – with activities for children and speeches on the Bathurst family’s historic links to the slave trade. David Watts, who lives nearby and often runs in the park, said: “Along with many other residents, I am really upset and disappointed about the new access restrictions and pay-walling of Cirencester Park. For many of us, Cecily Hill is not just an entrance to the park but a gateway to thousands of acres of English countryside which have been free to roam for centuries.” Juliette Morton, who is planning to join the protest, said: “I lived in a little road at the end of the park and kind of grew up in the park. We had a tiny backyard so the park was where I spent my time – it was our playground, we climbed trees and played around in the stables and outhouses. It was the main green space we had access to as kids in the town. “It’s part of the very fabric of people’s lives. If Covid showed us anything, it showed that we need access to green space. Taxpayers have been paying for the upkeep of that park for centuries. It’s ours already. I’m quite cross about it.” With the installation of a ticket booth and electronic gates on the main entrances, visitors must pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Local people can apply for a photo-card giving them free access for a deposit of £10. Morton added: “It might sound ridiculous but I know people who live in the town who can’t afford the £10 deposit.” According to campaigners, the Bathurst Estate has received millions of pounds in farm subsidies in recent years and the family fortunes ultimately rest on the slave trader Benjamin Bathurst, a deputy governor of the East India Company and the Royal Africa Company who purchased Cirencester Park in 1695 . Jon Moses of the Right to Roam campaign said: “In 1695, the 100,000 slaves traded by the Royal African Company paid an appalling price for the purchase of the Bathurst Estate. Their memory should be honoured with reparations, not new commercial ventures aimed at exploiting people going for a walk. “These cases are an abrupt reminder how badly access reform is needed in England – and how much of the land inequality we confront today is rooted in the immoral acts of our past.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion According to a statement from Lord Bathurst, the pass will support the restoration of the Broad Avenue and the maintenance of pathways, woodlands, grasslands and monuments in the park. Bathurst said: “The physical and health benefits that people and their dogs get from the restorative powers of being in the natural environment of Cirencester Park is as important today as when the park was first established. We are delighted to continue to share Cirencester Park with the local community and visitors to the area.” A spokesperson for the Bathurst Estate added: “The estate takes the safety of the park’s wildlife, visitors, staff and local residents seriously; we are in touch with Right to Roam about their plans with a view that any intended trespass is conducted with the same consideration.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Environmental activism Protest England Rural affairs news Share Reuse this content Hundreds of people are expected at a mass trespass of Cirencester Park in protest against the introduction of charges and electronic gates for pedestrians and joggers. Local people are fighting the charges, the first in 329 years since the landscaped parkland, part of the 6,300-hectare (15,500-acre) Bathurst Estate , was established beside the Cotswolds town. The Right to Roam campaign is organising the trespass on 17 March – two days after the charges begin – with activities for children and speeches on the Bathurst family’s historic links to the slave trade. David Watts, who lives nearby and often runs in the park, said: “Along with many other residents, I am really upset and disappointed about the new access restrictions and pay-walling of Cirencester Park. For many of us, Cecily Hill is not just an entrance to the park but a gateway to thousands of acres of English countryside which have been free to roam for centuries.” Juliette Morton, who is planning to join the protest, said: “I lived in a little road at the end of the park and kind of grew up in the park. We had a tiny backyard so the park was where I spent my time – it was our playground, we climbed trees and played around in the stables and outhouses. It was the main green space we had access to as kids in the town. “It’s part of the very fabric of people’s lives. If Covid showed us anything, it showed that we need access to green space. Taxpayers have been paying for the upkeep of that park for centuries. It’s ours already. I’m quite cross about it.” With the installation of a ticket booth and electronic gates on the main entrances, visitors must pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Local people can apply for a photo-card giving them free access for a deposit of £10. Morton added: “It might sound ridiculous but I know people who live in the town who can’t afford the £10 deposit.” According to campaigners, the Bathurst Estate has received millions of pounds in farm subsidies in recent years and the family fortunes ultimately rest on the slave trader Benjamin Bathurst, a deputy governor of the East India Company and the Royal Africa Company who purchased Cirencester Park in 1695 . Jon Moses of the Right to Roam campaign said: “In 1695, the 100,000 slaves traded by the Royal African Company paid an appalling price for the purchase of the Bathurst Estate. Their memory should be honoured with reparations, not new commercial ventures aimed at exploiting people going for a walk. “These cases are an abrupt reminder how badly access reform is needed in England – and how much of the land inequality we confront today is rooted in the immoral acts of our past.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion According to a statement from Lord Bathurst, the pass will support the restoration of the Broad Avenue and the maintenance of pathways, woodlands, grasslands and monuments in the park. Bathurst said: “The physical and health benefits that people and their dogs get from the restorative powers of being in the natural environment of Cirencester Park is as important today as when the park was first established. We are delighted to continue to share Cirencester Park with the local community and visitors to the area.” A spokesperson for the Bathurst Estate added: “The estate takes the safety of the park’s wildlife, visitors, staff and local residents seriously; we are in touch with Right to Roam about their plans with a view that any intended trespass is conducted with the same consideration.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Environmental activism Protest England Rural affairs news Share Reuse this content Hundreds of people are expected at a mass trespass of Cirencester Park in protest against the introduction of charges and electronic gates for pedestrians and joggers. Local people are fighting the charges, the first in 329 years since the landscaped parkland, part of the 6,300-hectare (15,500-acre) Bathurst Estate , was established beside the Cotswolds town. The Right to Roam campaign is organising the trespass on 17 March – two days after the charges begin – with activities for children and speeches on the Bathurst family’s historic links to the slave trade. David Watts, who lives nearby and often runs in the park, said: “Along with many other residents, I am really upset and disappointed about the new access restrictions and pay-walling of Cirencester Park. For many of us, Cecily Hill is not just an entrance to the park but a gateway to thousands of acres of English countryside which have been free to roam for centuries.” Juliette Morton, who is planning to join the protest, said: “I lived in a little road at the end of the park and kind of grew up in the park. We had a tiny backyard so the park was where I spent my time – it was our playground, we climbed trees and played around in the stables and outhouses. It was the main green space we had access to as kids in the town. “It’s part of the very fabric of people’s lives. If Covid showed us anything, it showed that we need access to green space. Taxpayers have been paying for the upkeep of that park for centuries. It’s ours already. I’m quite cross about it.” With the installation of a ticket booth and electronic gates on the main entrances, visitors must pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Local people can apply for a photo-card giving them free access for a deposit of £10. Morton added: “It might sound ridiculous but I know people who live in the town who can’t afford the £10 deposit.” According to campaigners, the Bathurst Estate has received millions of pounds in farm subsidies in recent years and the family fortunes ultimately rest on the slave trader Benjamin Bathurst, a deputy governor of the East India Company and the Royal Africa Company who purchased Cirencester Park in 1695 . Jon Moses of the Right to Roam campaign said: “In 1695, the 100,000 slaves traded by the Royal African Company paid an appalling price for the purchase of the Bathurst Estate. Their memory should be honoured with reparations, not new commercial ventures aimed at exploiting people going for a walk. “These cases are an abrupt reminder how badly access reform is needed in England – and how much of the land inequality we confront today is rooted in the immoral acts of our past.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion According to a statement from Lord Bathurst, the pass will support the restoration of the Broad Avenue and the maintenance of pathways, woodlands, grasslands and monuments in the park. Bathurst said: “The physical and health benefits that people and their dogs get from the restorative powers of being in the natural environment of Cirencester Park is as important today as when the park was first established. We are delighted to continue to share Cirencester Park with the local community and visitors to the area.” A spokesperson for the Bathurst Estate added: “The estate takes the safety of the park’s wildlife, visitors, staff and local residents seriously; we are in touch with Right to Roam about their plans with a view that any intended trespass is conducted with the same consideration.” Hundreds of people are expected at a mass trespass of Cirencester Park in protest against the introduction of charges and electronic gates for pedestrians and joggers. Local people are fighting the charges, the first in 329 years since the landscaped parkland, part of the 6,300-hectare (15,500-acre) Bathurst Estate , was established beside the Cotswolds town. The Right to Roam campaign is organising the trespass on 17 March – two days after the charges begin – with activities for children and speeches on the Bathurst family’s historic links to the slave trade. David Watts, who lives nearby and often runs in the park, said: “Along with many other residents, I am really upset and disappointed about the new access restrictions and pay-walling of Cirencester Park. For many of us, Cecily Hill is not just an entrance to the park but a gateway to thousands of acres of English countryside which have been free to roam for centuries.” Juliette Morton, who is planning to join the protest, said: “I lived in a little road at the end of the park and kind of grew up in the park. We had a tiny backyard so the park was where I spent my time – it was our playground, we climbed trees and played around in the stables and outhouses. It was the main green space we had access to as kids in the town. “It’s part of the very fabric of people’s lives. If Covid showed us anything, it showed that we need access to green space. Taxpayers have been paying for the upkeep of that park for centuries. It’s ours already. I’m quite cross about it.” With the installation of a ticket booth and electronic gates on the main entrances, visitors must pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Local people can apply for a photo-card giving them free access for a deposit of £10. Morton added: “It might sound ridiculous but I know people who live in the town who can’t afford the £10 deposit.” According to campaigners, the Bathurst Estate has received millions of pounds in farm subsidies in recent years and the family fortunes ultimately rest on the slave trader Benjamin Bathurst, a deputy governor of the East India Company and the Royal Africa Company who purchased Cirencester Park in 1695 . Jon Moses of the Right to Roam campaign said: “In 1695, the 100,000 slaves traded by the Royal African Company paid an appalling price for the purchase of the Bathurst Estate. Their memory should be honoured with reparations, not new commercial ventures aimed at exploiting people going for a walk. “These cases are an abrupt reminder how badly access reform is needed in England – and how much of the land inequality we confront today is rooted in the immoral acts of our past.” skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion According to a statement from Lord Bathurst, the pass will support the restoration of the Broad Avenue and the maintenance of pathways, woodlands, grasslands and monuments in the park. Bathurst said: “The physical and health benefits that people and their dogs get from the restorative powers of being in the natural environment of Cirencester Park is as important today as when the park was first established. We are delighted to continue to share Cirencester Park with the local community and visitors to the area.” A spokesperson for the Bathurst Estate added: “The estate takes the safety of the park’s wildlife, visitors, staff and local residents seriously; we are in touch with Right to Roam about their plans with a view that any intended trespass is conducted with the same consideration.” Hundreds of people are expected at a mass trespass of Cirencester Park in protest against the introduction of charges and electronic gates for pedestrians and joggers. Local people are fighting the charges, the first in 329 years since the landscaped parkland, part of the 6,300-hectare (15,500-acre) Bathurst Estate , was established beside the Cotswolds town. The Right to Roam campaign is organising the trespass on 17 March – two days after the charges begin – with activities for children and speeches on the Bathurst family’s historic links to the slave trade. David Watts, who lives nearby and often runs in the park, said: “Along with many other residents, I am really upset and disappointed about the new access restrictions and pay-walling of Cirencester Park. For many of us, Cecily Hill is not just an entrance to the park but a gateway to thousands of acres of English countryside which have been free to roam for centuries.” Juliette Morton, who is planning to join the protest, said: “I lived in a little road at the end of the park and kind of grew up in the park. We had a tiny backyard so the park was where I spent my time – it was our playground, we climbed trees and played around in the stables and outhouses. It was the main green space we had access to as kids in the town. “It’s part of the very fabric of people’s lives. If Covid showed us anything, it showed that we need access to green space. Taxpayers have been paying for the upkeep of that park for centuries. It’s ours already. I’m quite cross about it.” With the installation of a ticket booth and electronic gates on the main entrances, visitors must pay £4 to enter the park, with annual passes costing £30. Local people can apply for a photo-card giving them free access for a deposit of £10. Morton added: “It might sound ridiculous but I know people who live in the town who can’t afford the £10 deposit.” According to campaigners, the Bathurst Estate has received millions of pounds in farm subsidies in recent years and the family fortunes ultimately rest on the slave trader Benjamin Bathurst, a deputy governor of the East India Company and the Royal Africa Company who purchased Cirencester Park in 1695 . Jon Moses of the Right to Roam campaign said: “In 1695, the 100,000 slaves traded by the Royal African Company paid an appalling price for the purchase of the Bathurst Estate. Their memory should be honoured with reparations, not new commercial ventures aimed at exploiting people going for a walk. “These cases are an abrupt reminder how badly access reform is needed in England – and how much of the land inequality we confront today is rooted in the immoral acts of our past.” According to a statement from Lord Bathurst, the pass will support the restoration of the Broad Avenue and the maintenance of pathways, woodlands, grasslands and monuments in the park. Bathurst said: “The physical and health benefits that people and their dogs get from the restorative powers of being in the natural environment of Cirencester Park is as important today as when the park was first established. We are delighted to continue to share Cirencester Park with the local community and visitors to the area.” A spokesperson for the Bathurst Estate added: “The estate takes the safety of the park’s wildlife, visitors, staff and local residents seriously; we are in touch with Right to Roam about their plans with a view that any intended trespass is conducted with the same consideration.” Explore more on these topics Access to green space Environmental activism Protest England Rural affairs news Share Reuse this content Access to green space Environmental activism Protest England Rural affairs news |
Greta Thunberg joins climate protest blocking Swedish parliament
1:20 Greta Thunberg joins climate activists blocking Swedish parliament – video This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg joins climate protest blocking Swedish parliament This article is more than 1 year old Activist accuses Sweden of being ‘very good at greenwashing’ as group sits outside building’s main entrance Greta Thunberg has accused Sweden of being “very good at greenwashing” as she staged a protest along with about 50 other activists outside her home country’s parliament. The activists – who she said were acting as a group of concerned, largely young individuals rather than representing a particular organisation – sat outside the main entrance to Sweden’s government buildings in Stockholm on Monday morning in an attempt to stop politicians from getting to work. The action came on a high-stakes day for the Swedish government, with the prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, and numerous key figures in Brussels for its official flag-raising ceremony outside Nato headquarters after becoming members last week. The 21-year-old climate activist said: “Sweden is unfortunately not unique in completely ignoring the climate crisis, not treating it as an emergency at all. But actively trying to greenwash, deceive and lie in order to make it seem like they are doing enough and that they are moving in the right direction, when in fact the exact opposite is happening.” She added: “Sweden in particular is very good at greenwashing and framing themselves as a climate leader, when we have very high emissions per capita if we include all our emissions, including consumption based and biogenic emissions etc and especially if we look at historic emissions. So we are not a climate leader at all.” The Swedish government, a centre-right coalition run by the Moderate party and dependent on the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats, has faced heavy criticism in recent months over how it plans to reach its agreed climate goals with policies that are expected to greatly increase emissions. All over the world, Thunberg said, “people seem to be physically incapable of focusing on several things at the same time”. She added: “We need to be able to tackle the climate crisis in a way that addresses all the other root causes as well and make sure that we have a just transition.” The aim of Monday’s protest against the climate crisis and the people that it is killing, Thunberg said, was to highlight how “the people in power are ignoring the most affected and activists and young people and the science”. She accused politicians of instead “prioritising short-term economic profits”, which she said was “sacrificing human life and the planet in the name of greed”. She said this type of protest marked a first for Sweden, although similar actions had happened in other locations around the world. “The climate justice movement has for decades tried to get our message across and scientists and the most affected people have been sounding the alarm for even longer than that,” she said. “But the people in power have not been listening, they have been actively ignoring and silence those speaking out.” Climate scientists were also in attendance at the demonstration to show their support. Swedish police, who are understood to be at the protest, have been contacted for comment. Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Sweden Environmental activism Protest Climate crisis Europe news Share Reuse this content 1:20 Greta Thunberg joins climate activists blocking Swedish parliament – video This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg joins climate protest blocking Swedish parliament This article is more than 1 year old Activist accuses Sweden of being ‘very good at greenwashing’ as group sits outside building’s main entrance Greta Thunberg has accused Sweden of being “very good at greenwashing” as she staged a protest along with about 50 other activists outside her home country’s parliament. The activists – who she said were acting as a group of concerned, largely young individuals rather than representing a particular organisation – sat outside the main entrance to Sweden’s government buildings in Stockholm on Monday morning in an attempt to stop politicians from getting to work. The action came on a high-stakes day for the Swedish government, with the prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, and numerous key figures in Brussels for its official flag-raising ceremony outside Nato headquarters after becoming members last week. The 21-year-old climate activist said: “Sweden is unfortunately not unique in completely ignoring the climate crisis, not treating it as an emergency at all. But actively trying to greenwash, deceive and lie in order to make it seem like they are doing enough and that they are moving in the right direction, when in fact the exact opposite is happening.” She added: “Sweden in particular is very good at greenwashing and framing themselves as a climate leader, when we have very high emissions per capita if we include all our emissions, including consumption based and biogenic emissions etc and especially if we look at historic emissions. So we are not a climate leader at all.” The Swedish government, a centre-right coalition run by the Moderate party and dependent on the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats, has faced heavy criticism in recent months over how it plans to reach its agreed climate goals with policies that are expected to greatly increase emissions. All over the world, Thunberg said, “people seem to be physically incapable of focusing on several things at the same time”. She added: “We need to be able to tackle the climate crisis in a way that addresses all the other root causes as well and make sure that we have a just transition.” The aim of Monday’s protest against the climate crisis and the people that it is killing, Thunberg said, was to highlight how “the people in power are ignoring the most affected and activists and young people and the science”. She accused politicians of instead “prioritising short-term economic profits”, which she said was “sacrificing human life and the planet in the name of greed”. She said this type of protest marked a first for Sweden, although similar actions had happened in other locations around the world. “The climate justice movement has for decades tried to get our message across and scientists and the most affected people have been sounding the alarm for even longer than that,” she said. “But the people in power have not been listening, they have been actively ignoring and silence those speaking out.” Climate scientists were also in attendance at the demonstration to show their support. Swedish police, who are understood to be at the protest, have been contacted for comment. Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Sweden Environmental activism Protest Climate crisis Europe news Share Reuse this content 1:20 Greta Thunberg joins climate activists blocking Swedish parliament – video 1:20 Greta Thunberg joins climate activists blocking Swedish parliament – video 1:20 Greta Thunberg joins climate activists blocking Swedish parliament – video 1:20 Greta Thunberg joins climate activists blocking Swedish parliament – video This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg joins climate protest blocking Swedish parliament This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg joins climate protest blocking Swedish parliament This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg joins climate protest blocking Swedish parliament This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Activist accuses Sweden of being ‘very good at greenwashing’ as group sits outside building’s main entrance Activist accuses Sweden of being ‘very good at greenwashing’ as group sits outside building’s main entrance Activist accuses Sweden of being ‘very good at greenwashing’ as group sits outside building’s main entrance Greta Thunberg has accused Sweden of being “very good at greenwashing” as she staged a protest along with about 50 other activists outside her home country’s parliament. The activists – who she said were acting as a group of concerned, largely young individuals rather than representing a particular organisation – sat outside the main entrance to Sweden’s government buildings in Stockholm on Monday morning in an attempt to stop politicians from getting to work. The action came on a high-stakes day for the Swedish government, with the prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, and numerous key figures in Brussels for its official flag-raising ceremony outside Nato headquarters after becoming members last week. The 21-year-old climate activist said: “Sweden is unfortunately not unique in completely ignoring the climate crisis, not treating it as an emergency at all. But actively trying to greenwash, deceive and lie in order to make it seem like they are doing enough and that they are moving in the right direction, when in fact the exact opposite is happening.” She added: “Sweden in particular is very good at greenwashing and framing themselves as a climate leader, when we have very high emissions per capita if we include all our emissions, including consumption based and biogenic emissions etc and especially if we look at historic emissions. So we are not a climate leader at all.” The Swedish government, a centre-right coalition run by the Moderate party and dependent on the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats, has faced heavy criticism in recent months over how it plans to reach its agreed climate goals with policies that are expected to greatly increase emissions. All over the world, Thunberg said, “people seem to be physically incapable of focusing on several things at the same time”. She added: “We need to be able to tackle the climate crisis in a way that addresses all the other root causes as well and make sure that we have a just transition.” The aim of Monday’s protest against the climate crisis and the people that it is killing, Thunberg said, was to highlight how “the people in power are ignoring the most affected and activists and young people and the science”. She accused politicians of instead “prioritising short-term economic profits”, which she said was “sacrificing human life and the planet in the name of greed”. She said this type of protest marked a first for Sweden, although similar actions had happened in other locations around the world. “The climate justice movement has for decades tried to get our message across and scientists and the most affected people have been sounding the alarm for even longer than that,” she said. “But the people in power have not been listening, they have been actively ignoring and silence those speaking out.” Climate scientists were also in attendance at the demonstration to show their support. Swedish police, who are understood to be at the protest, have been contacted for comment. Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Sweden Environmental activism Protest Climate crisis Europe news Share Reuse this content Greta Thunberg has accused Sweden of being “very good at greenwashing” as she staged a protest along with about 50 other activists outside her home country’s parliament. The activists – who she said were acting as a group of concerned, largely young individuals rather than representing a particular organisation – sat outside the main entrance to Sweden’s government buildings in Stockholm on Monday morning in an attempt to stop politicians from getting to work. The action came on a high-stakes day for the Swedish government, with the prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, and numerous key figures in Brussels for its official flag-raising ceremony outside Nato headquarters after becoming members last week. The 21-year-old climate activist said: “Sweden is unfortunately not unique in completely ignoring the climate crisis, not treating it as an emergency at all. But actively trying to greenwash, deceive and lie in order to make it seem like they are doing enough and that they are moving in the right direction, when in fact the exact opposite is happening.” She added: “Sweden in particular is very good at greenwashing and framing themselves as a climate leader, when we have very high emissions per capita if we include all our emissions, including consumption based and biogenic emissions etc and especially if we look at historic emissions. So we are not a climate leader at all.” The Swedish government, a centre-right coalition run by the Moderate party and dependent on the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats, has faced heavy criticism in recent months over how it plans to reach its agreed climate goals with policies that are expected to greatly increase emissions. All over the world, Thunberg said, “people seem to be physically incapable of focusing on several things at the same time”. She added: “We need to be able to tackle the climate crisis in a way that addresses all the other root causes as well and make sure that we have a just transition.” The aim of Monday’s protest against the climate crisis and the people that it is killing, Thunberg said, was to highlight how “the people in power are ignoring the most affected and activists and young people and the science”. She accused politicians of instead “prioritising short-term economic profits”, which she said was “sacrificing human life and the planet in the name of greed”. She said this type of protest marked a first for Sweden, although similar actions had happened in other locations around the world. “The climate justice movement has for decades tried to get our message across and scientists and the most affected people have been sounding the alarm for even longer than that,” she said. “But the people in power have not been listening, they have been actively ignoring and silence those speaking out.” Climate scientists were also in attendance at the demonstration to show their support. Swedish police, who are understood to be at the protest, have been contacted for comment. Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Sweden Environmental activism Protest Climate crisis Europe news Share Reuse this content Greta Thunberg has accused Sweden of being “very good at greenwashing” as she staged a protest along with about 50 other activists outside her home country’s parliament. The activists – who she said were acting as a group of concerned, largely young individuals rather than representing a particular organisation – sat outside the main entrance to Sweden’s government buildings in Stockholm on Monday morning in an attempt to stop politicians from getting to work. The action came on a high-stakes day for the Swedish government, with the prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, and numerous key figures in Brussels for its official flag-raising ceremony outside Nato headquarters after becoming members last week. The 21-year-old climate activist said: “Sweden is unfortunately not unique in completely ignoring the climate crisis, not treating it as an emergency at all. But actively trying to greenwash, deceive and lie in order to make it seem like they are doing enough and that they are moving in the right direction, when in fact the exact opposite is happening.” She added: “Sweden in particular is very good at greenwashing and framing themselves as a climate leader, when we have very high emissions per capita if we include all our emissions, including consumption based and biogenic emissions etc and especially if we look at historic emissions. So we are not a climate leader at all.” The Swedish government, a centre-right coalition run by the Moderate party and dependent on the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats, has faced heavy criticism in recent months over how it plans to reach its agreed climate goals with policies that are expected to greatly increase emissions. All over the world, Thunberg said, “people seem to be physically incapable of focusing on several things at the same time”. She added: “We need to be able to tackle the climate crisis in a way that addresses all the other root causes as well and make sure that we have a just transition.” The aim of Monday’s protest against the climate crisis and the people that it is killing, Thunberg said, was to highlight how “the people in power are ignoring the most affected and activists and young people and the science”. She accused politicians of instead “prioritising short-term economic profits”, which she said was “sacrificing human life and the planet in the name of greed”. She said this type of protest marked a first for Sweden, although similar actions had happened in other locations around the world. “The climate justice movement has for decades tried to get our message across and scientists and the most affected people have been sounding the alarm for even longer than that,” she said. “But the people in power have not been listening, they have been actively ignoring and silence those speaking out.” Climate scientists were also in attendance at the demonstration to show their support. Swedish police, who are understood to be at the protest, have been contacted for comment. Greta Thunberg has accused Sweden of being “very good at greenwashing” as she staged a protest along with about 50 other activists outside her home country’s parliament. The activists – who she said were acting as a group of concerned, largely young individuals rather than representing a particular organisation – sat outside the main entrance to Sweden’s government buildings in Stockholm on Monday morning in an attempt to stop politicians from getting to work. The action came on a high-stakes day for the Swedish government, with the prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, and numerous key figures in Brussels for its official flag-raising ceremony outside Nato headquarters after becoming members last week. The 21-year-old climate activist said: “Sweden is unfortunately not unique in completely ignoring the climate crisis, not treating it as an emergency at all. But actively trying to greenwash, deceive and lie in order to make it seem like they are doing enough and that they are moving in the right direction, when in fact the exact opposite is happening.” She added: “Sweden in particular is very good at greenwashing and framing themselves as a climate leader, when we have very high emissions per capita if we include all our emissions, including consumption based and biogenic emissions etc and especially if we look at historic emissions. So we are not a climate leader at all.” The Swedish government, a centre-right coalition run by the Moderate party and dependent on the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats, has faced heavy criticism in recent months over how it plans to reach its agreed climate goals with policies that are expected to greatly increase emissions. All over the world, Thunberg said, “people seem to be physically incapable of focusing on several things at the same time”. She added: “We need to be able to tackle the climate crisis in a way that addresses all the other root causes as well and make sure that we have a just transition.” The aim of Monday’s protest against the climate crisis and the people that it is killing, Thunberg said, was to highlight how “the people in power are ignoring the most affected and activists and young people and the science”. She accused politicians of instead “prioritising short-term economic profits”, which she said was “sacrificing human life and the planet in the name of greed”. She said this type of protest marked a first for Sweden, although similar actions had happened in other locations around the world. “The climate justice movement has for decades tried to get our message across and scientists and the most affected people have been sounding the alarm for even longer than that,” she said. “But the people in power have not been listening, they have been actively ignoring and silence those speaking out.” Climate scientists were also in attendance at the demonstration to show their support. Swedish police, who are understood to be at the protest, have been contacted for comment. Greta Thunberg has accused Sweden of being “very good at greenwashing” as she staged a protest along with about 50 other activists outside her home country’s parliament. The activists – who she said were acting as a group of concerned, largely young individuals rather than representing a particular organisation – sat outside the main entrance to Sweden’s government buildings in Stockholm on Monday morning in an attempt to stop politicians from getting to work. The action came on a high-stakes day for the Swedish government, with the prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, and numerous key figures in Brussels for its official flag-raising ceremony outside Nato headquarters after becoming members last week. The 21-year-old climate activist said: “Sweden is unfortunately not unique in completely ignoring the climate crisis, not treating it as an emergency at all. But actively trying to greenwash, deceive and lie in order to make it seem like they are doing enough and that they are moving in the right direction, when in fact the exact opposite is happening.” She added: “Sweden in particular is very good at greenwashing and framing themselves as a climate leader, when we have very high emissions per capita if we include all our emissions, including consumption based and biogenic emissions etc and especially if we look at historic emissions. So we are not a climate leader at all.” The Swedish government, a centre-right coalition run by the Moderate party and dependent on the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats, has faced heavy criticism in recent months over how it plans to reach its agreed climate goals with policies that are expected to greatly increase emissions. All over the world, Thunberg said, “people seem to be physically incapable of focusing on several things at the same time”. She added: “We need to be able to tackle the climate crisis in a way that addresses all the other root causes as well and make sure that we have a just transition.” The aim of Monday’s protest against the climate crisis and the people that it is killing, Thunberg said, was to highlight how “the people in power are ignoring the most affected and activists and young people and the science”. She accused politicians of instead “prioritising short-term economic profits”, which she said was “sacrificing human life and the planet in the name of greed”. She said this type of protest marked a first for Sweden, although similar actions had happened in other locations around the world. “The climate justice movement has for decades tried to get our message across and scientists and the most affected people have been sounding the alarm for even longer than that,” she said. “But the people in power have not been listening, they have been actively ignoring and silence those speaking out.” Climate scientists were also in attendance at the demonstration to show their support. Swedish police, who are understood to be at the protest, have been contacted for comment. Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Sweden Environmental activism Protest Climate crisis Europe news Share Reuse this content Greta Thunberg Sweden Environmental activism Protest Climate crisis Europe news |
Greta Thunberg dragged by police from climate protest outside Swedish parliament – video
0:49 This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg dragged by police from climate protest outside Swedish parliament – video This article is more than 1 year old Swedish police have forcibly removed Greta Thunberg and other climate activists after they blocked the entrance to the Swedish parliament for a second day. Two officers lifted Thunberg and dragged her away before putting her down on the ground about 20 metres away from the door she had been obstructing. Thunberg and dozens of other environmental campaigners started blocking the main entrances to Sweden’s parliament on Monday in a sit-down protest against the effects of the climate crisis and what they said was political inaction Swedish police forcibly remove Greta Thunberg from parliament entrance Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Sweden Climate crisis Environmental activism 0:49 This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg dragged by police from climate protest outside Swedish parliament – video This article is more than 1 year old Swedish police have forcibly removed Greta Thunberg and other climate activists after they blocked the entrance to the Swedish parliament for a second day. Two officers lifted Thunberg and dragged her away before putting her down on the ground about 20 metres away from the door she had been obstructing. Thunberg and dozens of other environmental campaigners started blocking the main entrances to Sweden’s parliament on Monday in a sit-down protest against the effects of the climate crisis and what they said was political inaction Swedish police forcibly remove Greta Thunberg from parliament entrance Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Sweden Climate crisis Environmental activism This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg dragged by police from climate protest outside Swedish parliament – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg dragged by police from climate protest outside Swedish parliament – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Greta Thunberg dragged by police from climate protest outside Swedish parliament – video This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Swedish police have forcibly removed Greta Thunberg and other climate activists after they blocked the entrance to the Swedish parliament for a second day. Two officers lifted Thunberg and dragged her away before putting her down on the ground about 20 metres away from the door she had been obstructing. Thunberg and dozens of other environmental campaigners started blocking the main entrances to Sweden’s parliament on Monday in a sit-down protest against the effects of the climate crisis and what they said was political inaction Swedish police forcibly remove Greta Thunberg from parliament entrance Swedish police have forcibly removed Greta Thunberg and other climate activists after they blocked the entrance to the Swedish parliament for a second day. Two officers lifted Thunberg and dragged her away before putting her down on the ground about 20 metres away from the door she had been obstructing. Thunberg and dozens of other environmental campaigners started blocking the main entrances to Sweden’s parliament on Monday in a sit-down protest against the effects of the climate crisis and what they said was political inaction Swedish police forcibly remove Greta Thunberg from parliament entrance Swedish police have forcibly removed Greta Thunberg and other climate activists after they blocked the entrance to the Swedish parliament for a second day. Two officers lifted Thunberg and dragged her away before putting her down on the ground about 20 metres away from the door she had been obstructing. Thunberg and dozens of other environmental campaigners started blocking the main entrances to Sweden’s parliament on Monday in a sit-down protest against the effects of the climate crisis and what they said was political inaction Swedish police forcibly remove Greta Thunberg from parliament entrance Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Sweden Climate crisis Environmental activism Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Sweden Climate crisis Environmental activism Explore more on these topics Greta Thunberg Sweden Climate crisis Environmental activism Greta Thunberg Sweden Climate crisis Environmental activism |
US marshals urge millions in extra funds as threats against judges rise
The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old US marshals urge millions in extra funds as threats against judges rise This article is more than 1 year old Agency that protects judges and manages courthouse security says it needs greater funds to respond to rising danger The United States Marshals Service is asking Congress for $38m to fund two new programs aimed at bolstering judicial security in response to a rise in threats against federal judges and justices on the supreme court. Both programs were tucked into the US justice department’s budget proposal unveiled on Monday and were part of the US Marshals Service’s overall request for $4bn for the 2025 fiscal year that begins 1 October. The budget request proposes using $28.1m to create a new office of protective services within the marshals agency’s judicial security division, which is tasked with protecting more than 2,700 sitting judges and managing courthouse security. US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug Read more The marshals are seeking 53 new positions for the office, which “will develop a strong framework for fulfilling protective responsibilities for the federal judiciary”, including the US supreme court , the justice department said. A Reuters investigation last month documented a sharp rise in threats and intimidation directed at judges who have been criticized by Donald Trump after ruling against the Republican former president’s interests in cases they were hearing. Serious threats overall against federal judges rose to 457 in fiscal year 2023, from 224 in fiscal year 2021, according to the marshals service. The marshals service is also seeking $10m for a new grant program that provides funding to state and local governments to prevent the personal information of federal judges and their family members from being disclosed in government databases or registries. That program was authorized by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, legislation that was passed in 2022 that sought to allow judges to shield their personal information from being viewed online. The bill was named for US district judge Esther Salas’s son, who was shot and killed at her home in New Jersey by a disgruntled lawyer in July 2020. The marshals service’s request for $38m in new judicial security funding is on top of $805.9m the judiciary itself is seeking for court security and $19.4m sought by the US supreme court. The supreme court’s request included funding to expand the security activities of the supreme court police and to let the court’s police take over the duties currently served by the marshals service of protecting the justices’ homes. The marshals service, when requested, also protects supreme court justices when they travel outside Washington. The high court in 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, prompting protests outside the homes of members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. An armed California man was charged in 2022 with attempting to assassinate conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh after being arrested near his home. That man, Nicholas John Roske, has pleaded not guilty in the case. Explore more on these topics US supreme court US politics Law (US) news Share Reuse this content The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old US marshals urge millions in extra funds as threats against judges rise This article is more than 1 year old Agency that protects judges and manages courthouse security says it needs greater funds to respond to rising danger The United States Marshals Service is asking Congress for $38m to fund two new programs aimed at bolstering judicial security in response to a rise in threats against federal judges and justices on the supreme court. Both programs were tucked into the US justice department’s budget proposal unveiled on Monday and were part of the US Marshals Service’s overall request for $4bn for the 2025 fiscal year that begins 1 October. The budget request proposes using $28.1m to create a new office of protective services within the marshals agency’s judicial security division, which is tasked with protecting more than 2,700 sitting judges and managing courthouse security. US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug Read more The marshals are seeking 53 new positions for the office, which “will develop a strong framework for fulfilling protective responsibilities for the federal judiciary”, including the US supreme court , the justice department said. A Reuters investigation last month documented a sharp rise in threats and intimidation directed at judges who have been criticized by Donald Trump after ruling against the Republican former president’s interests in cases they were hearing. Serious threats overall against federal judges rose to 457 in fiscal year 2023, from 224 in fiscal year 2021, according to the marshals service. The marshals service is also seeking $10m for a new grant program that provides funding to state and local governments to prevent the personal information of federal judges and their family members from being disclosed in government databases or registries. That program was authorized by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, legislation that was passed in 2022 that sought to allow judges to shield their personal information from being viewed online. The bill was named for US district judge Esther Salas’s son, who was shot and killed at her home in New Jersey by a disgruntled lawyer in July 2020. The marshals service’s request for $38m in new judicial security funding is on top of $805.9m the judiciary itself is seeking for court security and $19.4m sought by the US supreme court. The supreme court’s request included funding to expand the security activities of the supreme court police and to let the court’s police take over the duties currently served by the marshals service of protecting the justices’ homes. The marshals service, when requested, also protects supreme court justices when they travel outside Washington. The high court in 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, prompting protests outside the homes of members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. An armed California man was charged in 2022 with attempting to assassinate conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh after being arrested near his home. That man, Nicholas John Roske, has pleaded not guilty in the case. Explore more on these topics US supreme court US politics Law (US) news Share Reuse this content The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images The US supreme court in Washington. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images This article is more than 1 year old US marshals urge millions in extra funds as threats against judges rise This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old US marshals urge millions in extra funds as threats against judges rise This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old US marshals urge millions in extra funds as threats against judges rise This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Agency that protects judges and manages courthouse security says it needs greater funds to respond to rising danger Agency that protects judges and manages courthouse security says it needs greater funds to respond to rising danger Agency that protects judges and manages courthouse security says it needs greater funds to respond to rising danger The United States Marshals Service is asking Congress for $38m to fund two new programs aimed at bolstering judicial security in response to a rise in threats against federal judges and justices on the supreme court. Both programs were tucked into the US justice department’s budget proposal unveiled on Monday and were part of the US Marshals Service’s overall request for $4bn for the 2025 fiscal year that begins 1 October. The budget request proposes using $28.1m to create a new office of protective services within the marshals agency’s judicial security division, which is tasked with protecting more than 2,700 sitting judges and managing courthouse security. US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug Read more The marshals are seeking 53 new positions for the office, which “will develop a strong framework for fulfilling protective responsibilities for the federal judiciary”, including the US supreme court , the justice department said. A Reuters investigation last month documented a sharp rise in threats and intimidation directed at judges who have been criticized by Donald Trump after ruling against the Republican former president’s interests in cases they were hearing. Serious threats overall against federal judges rose to 457 in fiscal year 2023, from 224 in fiscal year 2021, according to the marshals service. The marshals service is also seeking $10m for a new grant program that provides funding to state and local governments to prevent the personal information of federal judges and their family members from being disclosed in government databases or registries. That program was authorized by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, legislation that was passed in 2022 that sought to allow judges to shield their personal information from being viewed online. The bill was named for US district judge Esther Salas’s son, who was shot and killed at her home in New Jersey by a disgruntled lawyer in July 2020. The marshals service’s request for $38m in new judicial security funding is on top of $805.9m the judiciary itself is seeking for court security and $19.4m sought by the US supreme court. The supreme court’s request included funding to expand the security activities of the supreme court police and to let the court’s police take over the duties currently served by the marshals service of protecting the justices’ homes. The marshals service, when requested, also protects supreme court justices when they travel outside Washington. The high court in 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, prompting protests outside the homes of members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. An armed California man was charged in 2022 with attempting to assassinate conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh after being arrested near his home. That man, Nicholas John Roske, has pleaded not guilty in the case. Explore more on these topics US supreme court US politics Law (US) news Share Reuse this content The United States Marshals Service is asking Congress for $38m to fund two new programs aimed at bolstering judicial security in response to a rise in threats against federal judges and justices on the supreme court. Both programs were tucked into the US justice department’s budget proposal unveiled on Monday and were part of the US Marshals Service’s overall request for $4bn for the 2025 fiscal year that begins 1 October. The budget request proposes using $28.1m to create a new office of protective services within the marshals agency’s judicial security division, which is tasked with protecting more than 2,700 sitting judges and managing courthouse security. US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug Read more The marshals are seeking 53 new positions for the office, which “will develop a strong framework for fulfilling protective responsibilities for the federal judiciary”, including the US supreme court , the justice department said. A Reuters investigation last month documented a sharp rise in threats and intimidation directed at judges who have been criticized by Donald Trump after ruling against the Republican former president’s interests in cases they were hearing. Serious threats overall against federal judges rose to 457 in fiscal year 2023, from 224 in fiscal year 2021, according to the marshals service. The marshals service is also seeking $10m for a new grant program that provides funding to state and local governments to prevent the personal information of federal judges and their family members from being disclosed in government databases or registries. That program was authorized by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, legislation that was passed in 2022 that sought to allow judges to shield their personal information from being viewed online. The bill was named for US district judge Esther Salas’s son, who was shot and killed at her home in New Jersey by a disgruntled lawyer in July 2020. The marshals service’s request for $38m in new judicial security funding is on top of $805.9m the judiciary itself is seeking for court security and $19.4m sought by the US supreme court. The supreme court’s request included funding to expand the security activities of the supreme court police and to let the court’s police take over the duties currently served by the marshals service of protecting the justices’ homes. The marshals service, when requested, also protects supreme court justices when they travel outside Washington. The high court in 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, prompting protests outside the homes of members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. An armed California man was charged in 2022 with attempting to assassinate conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh after being arrested near his home. That man, Nicholas John Roske, has pleaded not guilty in the case. Explore more on these topics US supreme court US politics Law (US) news Share Reuse this content The United States Marshals Service is asking Congress for $38m to fund two new programs aimed at bolstering judicial security in response to a rise in threats against federal judges and justices on the supreme court. Both programs were tucked into the US justice department’s budget proposal unveiled on Monday and were part of the US Marshals Service’s overall request for $4bn for the 2025 fiscal year that begins 1 October. The budget request proposes using $28.1m to create a new office of protective services within the marshals agency’s judicial security division, which is tasked with protecting more than 2,700 sitting judges and managing courthouse security. US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug Read more The marshals are seeking 53 new positions for the office, which “will develop a strong framework for fulfilling protective responsibilities for the federal judiciary”, including the US supreme court , the justice department said. A Reuters investigation last month documented a sharp rise in threats and intimidation directed at judges who have been criticized by Donald Trump after ruling against the Republican former president’s interests in cases they were hearing. Serious threats overall against federal judges rose to 457 in fiscal year 2023, from 224 in fiscal year 2021, according to the marshals service. The marshals service is also seeking $10m for a new grant program that provides funding to state and local governments to prevent the personal information of federal judges and their family members from being disclosed in government databases or registries. That program was authorized by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, legislation that was passed in 2022 that sought to allow judges to shield their personal information from being viewed online. The bill was named for US district judge Esther Salas’s son, who was shot and killed at her home in New Jersey by a disgruntled lawyer in July 2020. The marshals service’s request for $38m in new judicial security funding is on top of $805.9m the judiciary itself is seeking for court security and $19.4m sought by the US supreme court. The supreme court’s request included funding to expand the security activities of the supreme court police and to let the court’s police take over the duties currently served by the marshals service of protecting the justices’ homes. The marshals service, when requested, also protects supreme court justices when they travel outside Washington. The high court in 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, prompting protests outside the homes of members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. An armed California man was charged in 2022 with attempting to assassinate conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh after being arrested near his home. That man, Nicholas John Roske, has pleaded not guilty in the case. The United States Marshals Service is asking Congress for $38m to fund two new programs aimed at bolstering judicial security in response to a rise in threats against federal judges and justices on the supreme court. Both programs were tucked into the US justice department’s budget proposal unveiled on Monday and were part of the US Marshals Service’s overall request for $4bn for the 2025 fiscal year that begins 1 October. The budget request proposes using $28.1m to create a new office of protective services within the marshals agency’s judicial security division, which is tasked with protecting more than 2,700 sitting judges and managing courthouse security. US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug Read more The marshals are seeking 53 new positions for the office, which “will develop a strong framework for fulfilling protective responsibilities for the federal judiciary”, including the US supreme court , the justice department said. A Reuters investigation last month documented a sharp rise in threats and intimidation directed at judges who have been criticized by Donald Trump after ruling against the Republican former president’s interests in cases they were hearing. Serious threats overall against federal judges rose to 457 in fiscal year 2023, from 224 in fiscal year 2021, according to the marshals service. The marshals service is also seeking $10m for a new grant program that provides funding to state and local governments to prevent the personal information of federal judges and their family members from being disclosed in government databases or registries. That program was authorized by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, legislation that was passed in 2022 that sought to allow judges to shield their personal information from being viewed online. The bill was named for US district judge Esther Salas’s son, who was shot and killed at her home in New Jersey by a disgruntled lawyer in July 2020. The marshals service’s request for $38m in new judicial security funding is on top of $805.9m the judiciary itself is seeking for court security and $19.4m sought by the US supreme court. The supreme court’s request included funding to expand the security activities of the supreme court police and to let the court’s police take over the duties currently served by the marshals service of protecting the justices’ homes. The marshals service, when requested, also protects supreme court justices when they travel outside Washington. The high court in 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, prompting protests outside the homes of members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. An armed California man was charged in 2022 with attempting to assassinate conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh after being arrested near his home. That man, Nicholas John Roske, has pleaded not guilty in the case. The United States Marshals Service is asking Congress for $38m to fund two new programs aimed at bolstering judicial security in response to a rise in threats against federal judges and justices on the supreme court. Both programs were tucked into the US justice department’s budget proposal unveiled on Monday and were part of the US Marshals Service’s overall request for $4bn for the 2025 fiscal year that begins 1 October. The budget request proposes using $28.1m to create a new office of protective services within the marshals agency’s judicial security division, which is tasked with protecting more than 2,700 sitting judges and managing courthouse security. US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug Read more US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug Read more US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug Read more US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug US pharma group opposing abortion pill restrictions also backs Republicans attacking drug The marshals are seeking 53 new positions for the office, which “will develop a strong framework for fulfilling protective responsibilities for the federal judiciary”, including the US supreme court , the justice department said. A Reuters investigation last month documented a sharp rise in threats and intimidation directed at judges who have been criticized by Donald Trump after ruling against the Republican former president’s interests in cases they were hearing. Serious threats overall against federal judges rose to 457 in fiscal year 2023, from 224 in fiscal year 2021, according to the marshals service. The marshals service is also seeking $10m for a new grant program that provides funding to state and local governments to prevent the personal information of federal judges and their family members from being disclosed in government databases or registries. That program was authorized by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, legislation that was passed in 2022 that sought to allow judges to shield their personal information from being viewed online. The bill was named for US district judge Esther Salas’s son, who was shot and killed at her home in New Jersey by a disgruntled lawyer in July 2020. The marshals service’s request for $38m in new judicial security funding is on top of $805.9m the judiciary itself is seeking for court security and $19.4m sought by the US supreme court. The supreme court’s request included funding to expand the security activities of the supreme court police and to let the court’s police take over the duties currently served by the marshals service of protecting the justices’ homes. The marshals service, when requested, also protects supreme court justices when they travel outside Washington. The high court in 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, prompting protests outside the homes of members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. An armed California man was charged in 2022 with attempting to assassinate conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh after being arrested near his home. That man, Nicholas John Roske, has pleaded not guilty in the case. Explore more on these topics US supreme court US politics Law (US) news Share Reuse this content US supreme court US politics Law (US) news |
Womadelaide 2024: global music festival finds the love amid 40C heat and calls to boycott
José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves View image in fullscreen José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves This article is more than 1 year old Womadelaide 2024: global music festival finds the love amid 40C heat and calls to boycott This article is more than 1 year old Opening on a 37C night in the wake of controversy, electrifying performers and enthusiastic crowds transcended an otherwise fraught event Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email T his year should have been an unmitigated high for Womadelaide: riding into 2024 on the crest of last year’s unprecedented crowds, a record number of four-day passes sold this year, and a lineup stacked with heavy hitters including José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley, Morcheeba, Baaba Maal, Seun Kuti and Nitin Sawhney. But as the festival approached, Womadelaide was making noise for all the wrong reasons. First, a campaign from the Australian Friends of Palestine against Marley’s inclusion, citing his attendance at a 2018 fundraiser for the Israel Defense Forces. View image in fullscreen Womadelaide headliner Corinne Bailey Rae. Photograph: Saige Prime Then there was the heatwave that unfortunately coincided with the festival. The temperature reached nearly 40C on Saturday – a blistering 39.9C, according to the Advertiser. And then there were the bats. In the week leading up to the festival, concern mounted about the double-whammy effect of heat and noise on the colony of 10,000 or so grey-headed flying foxes that lives in Tainmuntilla (AKA Adelaide Botanic Park), where Womadelaide takes place. Reports about “ bat bins ” being installed to catch their corpses didn’t help. Then, days before the festival opened, Palestinian band 47Soul announced that their invitation to perform had been rescinded back in November due to the festival’s concerns about providing “a suitably safe environment” in the context of tensions over Israel’s war in Gaza. Their post went viral, spurring calls for punters to boycott Womadelaide altogether. On Sunday, the festival released a statement apologising for the decision but stopping just short of calling it a mistake. In the end, just one act pulled out due to the boycott: the British Lebanese producer and DJ Saliah. But as the festival opened on the 37C Friday night, with criticism mounting on social media and pro-Palestine rallies at its main entrance, everyone was feeling the heat and some were wondering if all this noise would drown out the music. View image in fullscreen Seun Kuti & Egypt 80 on Saturday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette Because above all, Womadelaide is about music; people don’t come to be seen, or for the daytime drinking, or drugs on the dancefloor – they come for music. It’s not necessarily the specific music, either: though many buy tickets for particular headliners, it’s a distinctive facet of Womadelaide that people will set up in one spot, often with kids and coolers and camping chairs, and chance their day or long weekend on what happens around them. It’s one of the few festivals that has a “lifer” audience of people who return year after year, regardless of who is playing. And in these two key respects, Womadelaide remained undaunted this year: the audience was characteristically good-natured and the music was fantastic, with both conditions coalescing in large, enthusiastic crowds at the festival’s main stage for 81-year-old Brazilian Tropicália pioneer Gilberto Gil, Beninese icon and festival veteran Angélique Kidjo (a last-minute replacement for Nitin Sawhney, who dropped out due to a health emergency), British trip-hop trio Morcheeba, British singer-songwriter Corinne Bailey Rae, Senegalese doyen Baaba Maal and Seun Kuti & Egypt 80. And despite the calls to boycott or protest his set, and reports of a protest circle at his stage , Marley closed the festival on Monday night to a pounding dancefloor that belied his laid-back, reggae-infused set. In this lineup of luminaries, Afrofunk eight-piece Ibibio Sound Machine stood out. A combination of dancefloor bangers, a tight three-person brass section and frontwoman Eno Williams’ ebullient stage presence was met by a crowd response that had Williams in tears halfway through. View image in fullscreen Led by Eno Williams, Ibibio Sound Machine was a standout. Photograph: Saige Prime As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages – though at Womadelaide in particular, with its ethos of discovery, it pays to perambulate. There was a special kind of magic in cannoning from Ibibio’s main stage to the other side of the gardens just in time to see self-described “punky voodoo queen” Moonlight Benjamin casting an electrifying spell; or gravitating, ears first, from a food truck queue to a side stage to watch rediscovered British 70s funk gurus Cymande weave their joy. Standouts across the smaller stages included South Korean pansori pop six-piece Leenalchi, Réunionese singer and queer shaman Aurus, New York-based Pakistani singer Arooj Aftab, and western Sydney soul singer and rapper A.Girl. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen ‘As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages’: Moonlight Benjamin on Sunday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette A festival should always be bigger than the sum of its parts, and I was struck by the myriad ways and moments in which different acts spoke to one another, tracing a lineage of genres and their influence – from pioneers of Afrobeat, Ethio-jazz, Tropicália and Zamrock to younger generations of artists, and across multitude permutations of soul, funk, R&B and rock. Sometimes the conversation was more literal: Zambia’s Sampa the Great popped up on stage with Kidjo and with Zamrock frontrunners Witch; soul singer Bumpy guested with fellow Naarm artist Mo’Ju; and Jen Cloher performed with Naarm-based Māori culture troupe T’honi, whose influence Cloher described as transformative. View image in fullscreen Misters were set up to keep the crowd cool. Photograph: Saige Prime But while the festival was overwhelmingly joyful, the dismal state of the world was never far from mind. It was felt in the on-stage calls by artists for Treaty, for a ceasefire in Gaza, for an end to Aboriginal deaths in custody; it was heard in First Nations artists Rob Edwards and Bumpy’s respective reflections on the impact of the stolen generations on their own senses of cultural identity; it was seen in the keffiyehs and Palestinian flags that turned up on stage and in the crowd. There were abundant reminders of the manifold traumas unfolding elsewhere as artists talked about wars past and present, fraught elections, and gender and class relations in their home countries. Golden Plains 2024: a scorching sweet 16 for Australia’s best festival Read more Across the festival, every artist had the same message: love. It turned up in songs, in mid-show proclamations and in moments of unscripted, raw reflection. Cumulatively, it felt like an incantation – generously offered, gratefully received – against the Very Bad Times we live in. And what of the flying foxes? Happily, rumours of a “bat massacre” proved to be an exaggeration and the festival wisely decided to scupper the daytime lineup for the stage directly under the tree roosts so they could keep the sprinklers on during the hottest part of the day. There were misters for the rest of us too, set up at strategic spots across the park and in constant operation – both Band-Aid solutions for a climate-related threat to music festivals that isn’t going anywhere. Explore more on these topics Festivals Womadelaide Pop and rock Folk music features Share Reuse this content José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves View image in fullscreen José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves This article is more than 1 year old Womadelaide 2024: global music festival finds the love amid 40C heat and calls to boycott This article is more than 1 year old Opening on a 37C night in the wake of controversy, electrifying performers and enthusiastic crowds transcended an otherwise fraught event Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email T his year should have been an unmitigated high for Womadelaide: riding into 2024 on the crest of last year’s unprecedented crowds, a record number of four-day passes sold this year, and a lineup stacked with heavy hitters including José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley, Morcheeba, Baaba Maal, Seun Kuti and Nitin Sawhney. But as the festival approached, Womadelaide was making noise for all the wrong reasons. First, a campaign from the Australian Friends of Palestine against Marley’s inclusion, citing his attendance at a 2018 fundraiser for the Israel Defense Forces. View image in fullscreen Womadelaide headliner Corinne Bailey Rae. Photograph: Saige Prime Then there was the heatwave that unfortunately coincided with the festival. The temperature reached nearly 40C on Saturday – a blistering 39.9C, according to the Advertiser. And then there were the bats. In the week leading up to the festival, concern mounted about the double-whammy effect of heat and noise on the colony of 10,000 or so grey-headed flying foxes that lives in Tainmuntilla (AKA Adelaide Botanic Park), where Womadelaide takes place. Reports about “ bat bins ” being installed to catch their corpses didn’t help. Then, days before the festival opened, Palestinian band 47Soul announced that their invitation to perform had been rescinded back in November due to the festival’s concerns about providing “a suitably safe environment” in the context of tensions over Israel’s war in Gaza. Their post went viral, spurring calls for punters to boycott Womadelaide altogether. On Sunday, the festival released a statement apologising for the decision but stopping just short of calling it a mistake. In the end, just one act pulled out due to the boycott: the British Lebanese producer and DJ Saliah. But as the festival opened on the 37C Friday night, with criticism mounting on social media and pro-Palestine rallies at its main entrance, everyone was feeling the heat and some were wondering if all this noise would drown out the music. View image in fullscreen Seun Kuti & Egypt 80 on Saturday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette Because above all, Womadelaide is about music; people don’t come to be seen, or for the daytime drinking, or drugs on the dancefloor – they come for music. It’s not necessarily the specific music, either: though many buy tickets for particular headliners, it’s a distinctive facet of Womadelaide that people will set up in one spot, often with kids and coolers and camping chairs, and chance their day or long weekend on what happens around them. It’s one of the few festivals that has a “lifer” audience of people who return year after year, regardless of who is playing. And in these two key respects, Womadelaide remained undaunted this year: the audience was characteristically good-natured and the music was fantastic, with both conditions coalescing in large, enthusiastic crowds at the festival’s main stage for 81-year-old Brazilian Tropicália pioneer Gilberto Gil, Beninese icon and festival veteran Angélique Kidjo (a last-minute replacement for Nitin Sawhney, who dropped out due to a health emergency), British trip-hop trio Morcheeba, British singer-songwriter Corinne Bailey Rae, Senegalese doyen Baaba Maal and Seun Kuti & Egypt 80. And despite the calls to boycott or protest his set, and reports of a protest circle at his stage , Marley closed the festival on Monday night to a pounding dancefloor that belied his laid-back, reggae-infused set. In this lineup of luminaries, Afrofunk eight-piece Ibibio Sound Machine stood out. A combination of dancefloor bangers, a tight three-person brass section and frontwoman Eno Williams’ ebullient stage presence was met by a crowd response that had Williams in tears halfway through. View image in fullscreen Led by Eno Williams, Ibibio Sound Machine was a standout. Photograph: Saige Prime As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages – though at Womadelaide in particular, with its ethos of discovery, it pays to perambulate. There was a special kind of magic in cannoning from Ibibio’s main stage to the other side of the gardens just in time to see self-described “punky voodoo queen” Moonlight Benjamin casting an electrifying spell; or gravitating, ears first, from a food truck queue to a side stage to watch rediscovered British 70s funk gurus Cymande weave their joy. Standouts across the smaller stages included South Korean pansori pop six-piece Leenalchi, Réunionese singer and queer shaman Aurus, New York-based Pakistani singer Arooj Aftab, and western Sydney soul singer and rapper A.Girl. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen ‘As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages’: Moonlight Benjamin on Sunday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette A festival should always be bigger than the sum of its parts, and I was struck by the myriad ways and moments in which different acts spoke to one another, tracing a lineage of genres and their influence – from pioneers of Afrobeat, Ethio-jazz, Tropicália and Zamrock to younger generations of artists, and across multitude permutations of soul, funk, R&B and rock. Sometimes the conversation was more literal: Zambia’s Sampa the Great popped up on stage with Kidjo and with Zamrock frontrunners Witch; soul singer Bumpy guested with fellow Naarm artist Mo’Ju; and Jen Cloher performed with Naarm-based Māori culture troupe T’honi, whose influence Cloher described as transformative. View image in fullscreen Misters were set up to keep the crowd cool. Photograph: Saige Prime But while the festival was overwhelmingly joyful, the dismal state of the world was never far from mind. It was felt in the on-stage calls by artists for Treaty, for a ceasefire in Gaza, for an end to Aboriginal deaths in custody; it was heard in First Nations artists Rob Edwards and Bumpy’s respective reflections on the impact of the stolen generations on their own senses of cultural identity; it was seen in the keffiyehs and Palestinian flags that turned up on stage and in the crowd. There were abundant reminders of the manifold traumas unfolding elsewhere as artists talked about wars past and present, fraught elections, and gender and class relations in their home countries. Golden Plains 2024: a scorching sweet 16 for Australia’s best festival Read more Across the festival, every artist had the same message: love. It turned up in songs, in mid-show proclamations and in moments of unscripted, raw reflection. Cumulatively, it felt like an incantation – generously offered, gratefully received – against the Very Bad Times we live in. And what of the flying foxes? Happily, rumours of a “bat massacre” proved to be an exaggeration and the festival wisely decided to scupper the daytime lineup for the stage directly under the tree roosts so they could keep the sprinklers on during the hottest part of the day. There were misters for the rest of us too, set up at strategic spots across the park and in constant operation – both Band-Aid solutions for a climate-related threat to music festivals that isn’t going anywhere. Explore more on these topics Festivals Womadelaide Pop and rock Folk music features Share Reuse this content José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves View image in fullscreen José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves View image in fullscreen José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves View image in fullscreen José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves View image in fullscreen José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley and Morcheeba were among the headliners of Womadelaide 2024. Photograph: Samuel Graves This article is more than 1 year old Womadelaide 2024: global music festival finds the love amid 40C heat and calls to boycott This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Womadelaide 2024: global music festival finds the love amid 40C heat and calls to boycott This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Womadelaide 2024: global music festival finds the love amid 40C heat and calls to boycott This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Opening on a 37C night in the wake of controversy, electrifying performers and enthusiastic crowds transcended an otherwise fraught event Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email Opening on a 37C night in the wake of controversy, electrifying performers and enthusiastic crowds transcended an otherwise fraught event Get our weekend culture and lifestyle email Opening on a 37C night in the wake of controversy, electrifying performers and enthusiastic crowds transcended an otherwise fraught event T his year should have been an unmitigated high for Womadelaide: riding into 2024 on the crest of last year’s unprecedented crowds, a record number of four-day passes sold this year, and a lineup stacked with heavy hitters including José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley, Morcheeba, Baaba Maal, Seun Kuti and Nitin Sawhney. But as the festival approached, Womadelaide was making noise for all the wrong reasons. First, a campaign from the Australian Friends of Palestine against Marley’s inclusion, citing his attendance at a 2018 fundraiser for the Israel Defense Forces. View image in fullscreen Womadelaide headliner Corinne Bailey Rae. Photograph: Saige Prime Then there was the heatwave that unfortunately coincided with the festival. The temperature reached nearly 40C on Saturday – a blistering 39.9C, according to the Advertiser. And then there were the bats. In the week leading up to the festival, concern mounted about the double-whammy effect of heat and noise on the colony of 10,000 or so grey-headed flying foxes that lives in Tainmuntilla (AKA Adelaide Botanic Park), where Womadelaide takes place. Reports about “ bat bins ” being installed to catch their corpses didn’t help. Then, days before the festival opened, Palestinian band 47Soul announced that their invitation to perform had been rescinded back in November due to the festival’s concerns about providing “a suitably safe environment” in the context of tensions over Israel’s war in Gaza. Their post went viral, spurring calls for punters to boycott Womadelaide altogether. On Sunday, the festival released a statement apologising for the decision but stopping just short of calling it a mistake. In the end, just one act pulled out due to the boycott: the British Lebanese producer and DJ Saliah. But as the festival opened on the 37C Friday night, with criticism mounting on social media and pro-Palestine rallies at its main entrance, everyone was feeling the heat and some were wondering if all this noise would drown out the music. View image in fullscreen Seun Kuti & Egypt 80 on Saturday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette Because above all, Womadelaide is about music; people don’t come to be seen, or for the daytime drinking, or drugs on the dancefloor – they come for music. It’s not necessarily the specific music, either: though many buy tickets for particular headliners, it’s a distinctive facet of Womadelaide that people will set up in one spot, often with kids and coolers and camping chairs, and chance their day or long weekend on what happens around them. It’s one of the few festivals that has a “lifer” audience of people who return year after year, regardless of who is playing. And in these two key respects, Womadelaide remained undaunted this year: the audience was characteristically good-natured and the music was fantastic, with both conditions coalescing in large, enthusiastic crowds at the festival’s main stage for 81-year-old Brazilian Tropicália pioneer Gilberto Gil, Beninese icon and festival veteran Angélique Kidjo (a last-minute replacement for Nitin Sawhney, who dropped out due to a health emergency), British trip-hop trio Morcheeba, British singer-songwriter Corinne Bailey Rae, Senegalese doyen Baaba Maal and Seun Kuti & Egypt 80. And despite the calls to boycott or protest his set, and reports of a protest circle at his stage , Marley closed the festival on Monday night to a pounding dancefloor that belied his laid-back, reggae-infused set. In this lineup of luminaries, Afrofunk eight-piece Ibibio Sound Machine stood out. A combination of dancefloor bangers, a tight three-person brass section and frontwoman Eno Williams’ ebullient stage presence was met by a crowd response that had Williams in tears halfway through. View image in fullscreen Led by Eno Williams, Ibibio Sound Machine was a standout. Photograph: Saige Prime As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages – though at Womadelaide in particular, with its ethos of discovery, it pays to perambulate. There was a special kind of magic in cannoning from Ibibio’s main stage to the other side of the gardens just in time to see self-described “punky voodoo queen” Moonlight Benjamin casting an electrifying spell; or gravitating, ears first, from a food truck queue to a side stage to watch rediscovered British 70s funk gurus Cymande weave their joy. Standouts across the smaller stages included South Korean pansori pop six-piece Leenalchi, Réunionese singer and queer shaman Aurus, New York-based Pakistani singer Arooj Aftab, and western Sydney soul singer and rapper A.Girl. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen ‘As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages’: Moonlight Benjamin on Sunday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette A festival should always be bigger than the sum of its parts, and I was struck by the myriad ways and moments in which different acts spoke to one another, tracing a lineage of genres and their influence – from pioneers of Afrobeat, Ethio-jazz, Tropicália and Zamrock to younger generations of artists, and across multitude permutations of soul, funk, R&B and rock. Sometimes the conversation was more literal: Zambia’s Sampa the Great popped up on stage with Kidjo and with Zamrock frontrunners Witch; soul singer Bumpy guested with fellow Naarm artist Mo’Ju; and Jen Cloher performed with Naarm-based Māori culture troupe T’honi, whose influence Cloher described as transformative. View image in fullscreen Misters were set up to keep the crowd cool. Photograph: Saige Prime But while the festival was overwhelmingly joyful, the dismal state of the world was never far from mind. It was felt in the on-stage calls by artists for Treaty, for a ceasefire in Gaza, for an end to Aboriginal deaths in custody; it was heard in First Nations artists Rob Edwards and Bumpy’s respective reflections on the impact of the stolen generations on their own senses of cultural identity; it was seen in the keffiyehs and Palestinian flags that turned up on stage and in the crowd. There were abundant reminders of the manifold traumas unfolding elsewhere as artists talked about wars past and present, fraught elections, and gender and class relations in their home countries. Golden Plains 2024: a scorching sweet 16 for Australia’s best festival Read more Across the festival, every artist had the same message: love. It turned up in songs, in mid-show proclamations and in moments of unscripted, raw reflection. Cumulatively, it felt like an incantation – generously offered, gratefully received – against the Very Bad Times we live in. And what of the flying foxes? Happily, rumours of a “bat massacre” proved to be an exaggeration and the festival wisely decided to scupper the daytime lineup for the stage directly under the tree roosts so they could keep the sprinklers on during the hottest part of the day. There were misters for the rest of us too, set up at strategic spots across the park and in constant operation – both Band-Aid solutions for a climate-related threat to music festivals that isn’t going anywhere. Explore more on these topics Festivals Womadelaide Pop and rock Folk music features Share Reuse this content T his year should have been an unmitigated high for Womadelaide: riding into 2024 on the crest of last year’s unprecedented crowds, a record number of four-day passes sold this year, and a lineup stacked with heavy hitters including José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley, Morcheeba, Baaba Maal, Seun Kuti and Nitin Sawhney. But as the festival approached, Womadelaide was making noise for all the wrong reasons. First, a campaign from the Australian Friends of Palestine against Marley’s inclusion, citing his attendance at a 2018 fundraiser for the Israel Defense Forces. View image in fullscreen Womadelaide headliner Corinne Bailey Rae. Photograph: Saige Prime Then there was the heatwave that unfortunately coincided with the festival. The temperature reached nearly 40C on Saturday – a blistering 39.9C, according to the Advertiser. And then there were the bats. In the week leading up to the festival, concern mounted about the double-whammy effect of heat and noise on the colony of 10,000 or so grey-headed flying foxes that lives in Tainmuntilla (AKA Adelaide Botanic Park), where Womadelaide takes place. Reports about “ bat bins ” being installed to catch their corpses didn’t help. Then, days before the festival opened, Palestinian band 47Soul announced that their invitation to perform had been rescinded back in November due to the festival’s concerns about providing “a suitably safe environment” in the context of tensions over Israel’s war in Gaza. Their post went viral, spurring calls for punters to boycott Womadelaide altogether. On Sunday, the festival released a statement apologising for the decision but stopping just short of calling it a mistake. In the end, just one act pulled out due to the boycott: the British Lebanese producer and DJ Saliah. But as the festival opened on the 37C Friday night, with criticism mounting on social media and pro-Palestine rallies at its main entrance, everyone was feeling the heat and some were wondering if all this noise would drown out the music. View image in fullscreen Seun Kuti & Egypt 80 on Saturday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette Because above all, Womadelaide is about music; people don’t come to be seen, or for the daytime drinking, or drugs on the dancefloor – they come for music. It’s not necessarily the specific music, either: though many buy tickets for particular headliners, it’s a distinctive facet of Womadelaide that people will set up in one spot, often with kids and coolers and camping chairs, and chance their day or long weekend on what happens around them. It’s one of the few festivals that has a “lifer” audience of people who return year after year, regardless of who is playing. And in these two key respects, Womadelaide remained undaunted this year: the audience was characteristically good-natured and the music was fantastic, with both conditions coalescing in large, enthusiastic crowds at the festival’s main stage for 81-year-old Brazilian Tropicália pioneer Gilberto Gil, Beninese icon and festival veteran Angélique Kidjo (a last-minute replacement for Nitin Sawhney, who dropped out due to a health emergency), British trip-hop trio Morcheeba, British singer-songwriter Corinne Bailey Rae, Senegalese doyen Baaba Maal and Seun Kuti & Egypt 80. And despite the calls to boycott or protest his set, and reports of a protest circle at his stage , Marley closed the festival on Monday night to a pounding dancefloor that belied his laid-back, reggae-infused set. In this lineup of luminaries, Afrofunk eight-piece Ibibio Sound Machine stood out. A combination of dancefloor bangers, a tight three-person brass section and frontwoman Eno Williams’ ebullient stage presence was met by a crowd response that had Williams in tears halfway through. View image in fullscreen Led by Eno Williams, Ibibio Sound Machine was a standout. Photograph: Saige Prime As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages – though at Womadelaide in particular, with its ethos of discovery, it pays to perambulate. There was a special kind of magic in cannoning from Ibibio’s main stage to the other side of the gardens just in time to see self-described “punky voodoo queen” Moonlight Benjamin casting an electrifying spell; or gravitating, ears first, from a food truck queue to a side stage to watch rediscovered British 70s funk gurus Cymande weave their joy. Standouts across the smaller stages included South Korean pansori pop six-piece Leenalchi, Réunionese singer and queer shaman Aurus, New York-based Pakistani singer Arooj Aftab, and western Sydney soul singer and rapper A.Girl. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen ‘As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages’: Moonlight Benjamin on Sunday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette A festival should always be bigger than the sum of its parts, and I was struck by the myriad ways and moments in which different acts spoke to one another, tracing a lineage of genres and their influence – from pioneers of Afrobeat, Ethio-jazz, Tropicália and Zamrock to younger generations of artists, and across multitude permutations of soul, funk, R&B and rock. Sometimes the conversation was more literal: Zambia’s Sampa the Great popped up on stage with Kidjo and with Zamrock frontrunners Witch; soul singer Bumpy guested with fellow Naarm artist Mo’Ju; and Jen Cloher performed with Naarm-based Māori culture troupe T’honi, whose influence Cloher described as transformative. View image in fullscreen Misters were set up to keep the crowd cool. Photograph: Saige Prime But while the festival was overwhelmingly joyful, the dismal state of the world was never far from mind. It was felt in the on-stage calls by artists for Treaty, for a ceasefire in Gaza, for an end to Aboriginal deaths in custody; it was heard in First Nations artists Rob Edwards and Bumpy’s respective reflections on the impact of the stolen generations on their own senses of cultural identity; it was seen in the keffiyehs and Palestinian flags that turned up on stage and in the crowd. There were abundant reminders of the manifold traumas unfolding elsewhere as artists talked about wars past and present, fraught elections, and gender and class relations in their home countries. Golden Plains 2024: a scorching sweet 16 for Australia’s best festival Read more Across the festival, every artist had the same message: love. It turned up in songs, in mid-show proclamations and in moments of unscripted, raw reflection. Cumulatively, it felt like an incantation – generously offered, gratefully received – against the Very Bad Times we live in. And what of the flying foxes? Happily, rumours of a “bat massacre” proved to be an exaggeration and the festival wisely decided to scupper the daytime lineup for the stage directly under the tree roosts so they could keep the sprinklers on during the hottest part of the day. There were misters for the rest of us too, set up at strategic spots across the park and in constant operation – both Band-Aid solutions for a climate-related threat to music festivals that isn’t going anywhere. Explore more on these topics Festivals Womadelaide Pop and rock Folk music features Share Reuse this content T his year should have been an unmitigated high for Womadelaide: riding into 2024 on the crest of last year’s unprecedented crowds, a record number of four-day passes sold this year, and a lineup stacked with heavy hitters including José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley, Morcheeba, Baaba Maal, Seun Kuti and Nitin Sawhney. But as the festival approached, Womadelaide was making noise for all the wrong reasons. First, a campaign from the Australian Friends of Palestine against Marley’s inclusion, citing his attendance at a 2018 fundraiser for the Israel Defense Forces. View image in fullscreen Womadelaide headliner Corinne Bailey Rae. Photograph: Saige Prime Then there was the heatwave that unfortunately coincided with the festival. The temperature reached nearly 40C on Saturday – a blistering 39.9C, according to the Advertiser. And then there were the bats. In the week leading up to the festival, concern mounted about the double-whammy effect of heat and noise on the colony of 10,000 or so grey-headed flying foxes that lives in Tainmuntilla (AKA Adelaide Botanic Park), where Womadelaide takes place. Reports about “ bat bins ” being installed to catch their corpses didn’t help. Then, days before the festival opened, Palestinian band 47Soul announced that their invitation to perform had been rescinded back in November due to the festival’s concerns about providing “a suitably safe environment” in the context of tensions over Israel’s war in Gaza. Their post went viral, spurring calls for punters to boycott Womadelaide altogether. On Sunday, the festival released a statement apologising for the decision but stopping just short of calling it a mistake. In the end, just one act pulled out due to the boycott: the British Lebanese producer and DJ Saliah. But as the festival opened on the 37C Friday night, with criticism mounting on social media and pro-Palestine rallies at its main entrance, everyone was feeling the heat and some were wondering if all this noise would drown out the music. View image in fullscreen Seun Kuti & Egypt 80 on Saturday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette Because above all, Womadelaide is about music; people don’t come to be seen, or for the daytime drinking, or drugs on the dancefloor – they come for music. It’s not necessarily the specific music, either: though many buy tickets for particular headliners, it’s a distinctive facet of Womadelaide that people will set up in one spot, often with kids and coolers and camping chairs, and chance their day or long weekend on what happens around them. It’s one of the few festivals that has a “lifer” audience of people who return year after year, regardless of who is playing. And in these two key respects, Womadelaide remained undaunted this year: the audience was characteristically good-natured and the music was fantastic, with both conditions coalescing in large, enthusiastic crowds at the festival’s main stage for 81-year-old Brazilian Tropicália pioneer Gilberto Gil, Beninese icon and festival veteran Angélique Kidjo (a last-minute replacement for Nitin Sawhney, who dropped out due to a health emergency), British trip-hop trio Morcheeba, British singer-songwriter Corinne Bailey Rae, Senegalese doyen Baaba Maal and Seun Kuti & Egypt 80. And despite the calls to boycott or protest his set, and reports of a protest circle at his stage , Marley closed the festival on Monday night to a pounding dancefloor that belied his laid-back, reggae-infused set. In this lineup of luminaries, Afrofunk eight-piece Ibibio Sound Machine stood out. A combination of dancefloor bangers, a tight three-person brass section and frontwoman Eno Williams’ ebullient stage presence was met by a crowd response that had Williams in tears halfway through. View image in fullscreen Led by Eno Williams, Ibibio Sound Machine was a standout. Photograph: Saige Prime As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages – though at Womadelaide in particular, with its ethos of discovery, it pays to perambulate. There was a special kind of magic in cannoning from Ibibio’s main stage to the other side of the gardens just in time to see self-described “punky voodoo queen” Moonlight Benjamin casting an electrifying spell; or gravitating, ears first, from a food truck queue to a side stage to watch rediscovered British 70s funk gurus Cymande weave their joy. Standouts across the smaller stages included South Korean pansori pop six-piece Leenalchi, Réunionese singer and queer shaman Aurus, New York-based Pakistani singer Arooj Aftab, and western Sydney soul singer and rapper A.Girl. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen ‘As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages’: Moonlight Benjamin on Sunday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette A festival should always be bigger than the sum of its parts, and I was struck by the myriad ways and moments in which different acts spoke to one another, tracing a lineage of genres and their influence – from pioneers of Afrobeat, Ethio-jazz, Tropicália and Zamrock to younger generations of artists, and across multitude permutations of soul, funk, R&B and rock. Sometimes the conversation was more literal: Zambia’s Sampa the Great popped up on stage with Kidjo and with Zamrock frontrunners Witch; soul singer Bumpy guested with fellow Naarm artist Mo’Ju; and Jen Cloher performed with Naarm-based Māori culture troupe T’honi, whose influence Cloher described as transformative. View image in fullscreen Misters were set up to keep the crowd cool. Photograph: Saige Prime But while the festival was overwhelmingly joyful, the dismal state of the world was never far from mind. It was felt in the on-stage calls by artists for Treaty, for a ceasefire in Gaza, for an end to Aboriginal deaths in custody; it was heard in First Nations artists Rob Edwards and Bumpy’s respective reflections on the impact of the stolen generations on their own senses of cultural identity; it was seen in the keffiyehs and Palestinian flags that turned up on stage and in the crowd. There were abundant reminders of the manifold traumas unfolding elsewhere as artists talked about wars past and present, fraught elections, and gender and class relations in their home countries. Golden Plains 2024: a scorching sweet 16 for Australia’s best festival Read more Across the festival, every artist had the same message: love. It turned up in songs, in mid-show proclamations and in moments of unscripted, raw reflection. Cumulatively, it felt like an incantation – generously offered, gratefully received – against the Very Bad Times we live in. And what of the flying foxes? Happily, rumours of a “bat massacre” proved to be an exaggeration and the festival wisely decided to scupper the daytime lineup for the stage directly under the tree roosts so they could keep the sprinklers on during the hottest part of the day. There were misters for the rest of us too, set up at strategic spots across the park and in constant operation – both Band-Aid solutions for a climate-related threat to music festivals that isn’t going anywhere. T his year should have been an unmitigated high for Womadelaide: riding into 2024 on the crest of last year’s unprecedented crowds, a record number of four-day passes sold this year, and a lineup stacked with heavy hitters including José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley, Morcheeba, Baaba Maal, Seun Kuti and Nitin Sawhney. But as the festival approached, Womadelaide was making noise for all the wrong reasons. First, a campaign from the Australian Friends of Palestine against Marley’s inclusion, citing his attendance at a 2018 fundraiser for the Israel Defense Forces. View image in fullscreen Womadelaide headliner Corinne Bailey Rae. Photograph: Saige Prime Then there was the heatwave that unfortunately coincided with the festival. The temperature reached nearly 40C on Saturday – a blistering 39.9C, according to the Advertiser. And then there were the bats. In the week leading up to the festival, concern mounted about the double-whammy effect of heat and noise on the colony of 10,000 or so grey-headed flying foxes that lives in Tainmuntilla (AKA Adelaide Botanic Park), where Womadelaide takes place. Reports about “ bat bins ” being installed to catch their corpses didn’t help. Then, days before the festival opened, Palestinian band 47Soul announced that their invitation to perform had been rescinded back in November due to the festival’s concerns about providing “a suitably safe environment” in the context of tensions over Israel’s war in Gaza. Their post went viral, spurring calls for punters to boycott Womadelaide altogether. On Sunday, the festival released a statement apologising for the decision but stopping just short of calling it a mistake. In the end, just one act pulled out due to the boycott: the British Lebanese producer and DJ Saliah. But as the festival opened on the 37C Friday night, with criticism mounting on social media and pro-Palestine rallies at its main entrance, everyone was feeling the heat and some were wondering if all this noise would drown out the music. View image in fullscreen Seun Kuti & Egypt 80 on Saturday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette Because above all, Womadelaide is about music; people don’t come to be seen, or for the daytime drinking, or drugs on the dancefloor – they come for music. It’s not necessarily the specific music, either: though many buy tickets for particular headliners, it’s a distinctive facet of Womadelaide that people will set up in one spot, often with kids and coolers and camping chairs, and chance their day or long weekend on what happens around them. It’s one of the few festivals that has a “lifer” audience of people who return year after year, regardless of who is playing. And in these two key respects, Womadelaide remained undaunted this year: the audience was characteristically good-natured and the music was fantastic, with both conditions coalescing in large, enthusiastic crowds at the festival’s main stage for 81-year-old Brazilian Tropicália pioneer Gilberto Gil, Beninese icon and festival veteran Angélique Kidjo (a last-minute replacement for Nitin Sawhney, who dropped out due to a health emergency), British trip-hop trio Morcheeba, British singer-songwriter Corinne Bailey Rae, Senegalese doyen Baaba Maal and Seun Kuti & Egypt 80. And despite the calls to boycott or protest his set, and reports of a protest circle at his stage , Marley closed the festival on Monday night to a pounding dancefloor that belied his laid-back, reggae-infused set. In this lineup of luminaries, Afrofunk eight-piece Ibibio Sound Machine stood out. A combination of dancefloor bangers, a tight three-person brass section and frontwoman Eno Williams’ ebullient stage presence was met by a crowd response that had Williams in tears halfway through. View image in fullscreen Led by Eno Williams, Ibibio Sound Machine was a standout. Photograph: Saige Prime As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages – though at Womadelaide in particular, with its ethos of discovery, it pays to perambulate. There was a special kind of magic in cannoning from Ibibio’s main stage to the other side of the gardens just in time to see self-described “punky voodoo queen” Moonlight Benjamin casting an electrifying spell; or gravitating, ears first, from a food truck queue to a side stage to watch rediscovered British 70s funk gurus Cymande weave their joy. Standouts across the smaller stages included South Korean pansori pop six-piece Leenalchi, Réunionese singer and queer shaman Aurus, New York-based Pakistani singer Arooj Aftab, and western Sydney soul singer and rapper A.Girl. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen ‘As with any festival, many of the biggest treats were found on the smaller stages’: Moonlight Benjamin on Sunday night. Photograph: Morgan Sette A festival should always be bigger than the sum of its parts, and I was struck by the myriad ways and moments in which different acts spoke to one another, tracing a lineage of genres and their influence – from pioneers of Afrobeat, Ethio-jazz, Tropicália and Zamrock to younger generations of artists, and across multitude permutations of soul, funk, R&B and rock. Sometimes the conversation was more literal: Zambia’s Sampa the Great popped up on stage with Kidjo and with Zamrock frontrunners Witch; soul singer Bumpy guested with fellow Naarm artist Mo’Ju; and Jen Cloher performed with Naarm-based Māori culture troupe T’honi, whose influence Cloher described as transformative. View image in fullscreen Misters were set up to keep the crowd cool. Photograph: Saige Prime But while the festival was overwhelmingly joyful, the dismal state of the world was never far from mind. It was felt in the on-stage calls by artists for Treaty, for a ceasefire in Gaza, for an end to Aboriginal deaths in custody; it was heard in First Nations artists Rob Edwards and Bumpy’s respective reflections on the impact of the stolen generations on their own senses of cultural identity; it was seen in the keffiyehs and Palestinian flags that turned up on stage and in the crowd. There were abundant reminders of the manifold traumas unfolding elsewhere as artists talked about wars past and present, fraught elections, and gender and class relations in their home countries. Golden Plains 2024: a scorching sweet 16 for Australia’s best festival Read more Across the festival, every artist had the same message: love. It turned up in songs, in mid-show proclamations and in moments of unscripted, raw reflection. Cumulatively, it felt like an incantation – generously offered, gratefully received – against the Very Bad Times we live in. And what of the flying foxes? Happily, rumours of a “bat massacre” proved to be an exaggeration and the festival wisely decided to scupper the daytime lineup for the stage directly under the tree roosts so they could keep the sprinklers on during the hottest part of the day. There were misters for the rest of us too, set up at strategic spots across the park and in constant operation – both Band-Aid solutions for a climate-related threat to music festivals that isn’t going anywhere. T his year should have been an unmitigated high for Womadelaide: riding into 2024 on the crest of last year’s unprecedented crowds, a record number of four-day passes sold this year, and a lineup stacked with heavy hitters including José González, Corinne Bailey Rae, Ziggy Marley, Morcheeba, Baaba Maal, Seun Kuti and Nitin Sawhney. But as the festival approached, Womadelaide was making noise for all the wrong reasons. First, a campaign from the Australian Friends of Palestine against Marley’s inclusion, citing his attendance at a 2018 fundraiser for the Israel Defense Forces. Then there was the heatwave that unfortunately coincided with the festival. The temperature reached nearly 40C on Saturday – a blistering 39.9C, according to the Advertiser. And then there were the bats. In the week leading up to the festival, concern mounted about the double-whammy effect of heat and noise on the colony of 10,000 or so grey-headed flying foxes that lives in Tainmuntilla (AKA Adelaide Botanic Park), where Womadelaide takes place. Reports about “ bat bins ” being installed to catch their corpses didn’t help. Then, days before the festival opened, Palestinian band 47Soul announced that their invitation to perform had been rescinded back in November due to the festival’s concerns about providing “a suitably safe environment” in the context of tensions over Israel’s war in Gaza. Their post went viral, spurring calls for punters to boycott Womadelaide altogether. On Sunday, the festival released a statement apologising for the decision but stopping just short of calling it a mistake. In the end, just one act pulled out due to the boycott: the British Lebanese producer and DJ Saliah. But as the festival opened on the 37C Friday night, with criticism
[TRONCATO per limite Google Sheets] |
Camilla lauds suffragette stones of ‘hope’ – and gets very own Barbie doll
Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP View image in fullscreen Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP This article is more than 1 year old Camilla lauds suffragette stones of ‘hope’ – and gets very own Barbie doll This article is more than 1 year old In speech as president of Women of the World festival, queen shows audience objects thrown at palace windows in 1914 protest Two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows during a suffragette protest more than a century ago and saved for posterity represented “hope to the women who threw them”, Queen Camilla has told equality campaigners. While some of the suffragette’s more destructive tactics could not be condoned today, Camilla said there was “sermon in the stones” that had cracked two window panes but were kept by the royal family. In a speech as president of the Wow (Women of the World) festival she told guests including Dame Helen Mirren, Doreen Lawrence, Spice Girl Mel B and Dame Kelly Holmes: “I would like to begin with a ‘show and tell’. View image in fullscreen The two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows by suffragettes in 1914. Photograph: Paul Grover/The Telegraph/PA “I have here two stones that, on 27 May 1914, were thrown at the palace during a suffragette protest. The label on this one reads: ‘If a constitutional deputation is refused, we must present a stone message.’ This one says: ‘Constitutional methods being ignored drive us to window smashing.’ “The Times reported two days afterwards: ‘Between 11 and 12 o’clock on Wednesday, two women succeeded in evading the sentries at Buckingham Palace and entered the quadrangle. They threw stones at the windows and broke two panes of glass before the sentries intervened.’” The women were arrested, but the palace’s master of the household refused to prosecute, and Queen Mary, wife of King George V, kept the stones, Camilla said. “I thought today we might, to quote Shakespeare, find “sermons in stones”, she added. While not encouraging her audience to take similar actions, she said, and “while the more destructive steps taken by the suffragettes could not be condoned today, I wanted to show you these stones because of what they represent. “In 1914, I believe, they represented hope to the women who threw them – hope that, in the future, they would not be victims of their history, nor of the social and economic forces that were ranged against gender equality. Above all, they represented the hope that it was possible, as Christabel Pankhurst said, “to make this world a better place for women”. She told the Buckingham Palace audience, which included some schoolgirls, that 110 years later they had been invited because they too represented hope for women. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Camilla meets schoolchildren at the event. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla was presented with her own personalised Barbie doll and joked that it made her look 50 years younger. Holding the miniature version of herself during the event celebrating Wow and International Women’s Day, she said: “You’ve taken about 50 years off my life – we should all have a Barbie.” The one-off Barbie was dressed in a scaled down version of an outfit worn a number of times by Camilla: a blue Fiona Clare dress, black cape by Amanda Wakeley and Eliot Zed black boots. The doll’s hair was closely modelled on Camilla’s curls as was the jewellery worn by the toy, which featured a Wow badge also worn by her. The presentation was made onboard the Wow Girls festival bus, which has toured the country promoting gender equality and made a final stop at the palace, where Camilla toured it with Queen Mathilde of Belgium and the Duchess of Gloucester. Explore more on these topics Queen Camilla Women Protest Monarchy Children Politics past news Share Reuse this content Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP View image in fullscreen Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP This article is more than 1 year old Camilla lauds suffragette stones of ‘hope’ – and gets very own Barbie doll This article is more than 1 year old In speech as president of Women of the World festival, queen shows audience objects thrown at palace windows in 1914 protest Two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows during a suffragette protest more than a century ago and saved for posterity represented “hope to the women who threw them”, Queen Camilla has told equality campaigners. While some of the suffragette’s more destructive tactics could not be condoned today, Camilla said there was “sermon in the stones” that had cracked two window panes but were kept by the royal family. In a speech as president of the Wow (Women of the World) festival she told guests including Dame Helen Mirren, Doreen Lawrence, Spice Girl Mel B and Dame Kelly Holmes: “I would like to begin with a ‘show and tell’. View image in fullscreen The two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows by suffragettes in 1914. Photograph: Paul Grover/The Telegraph/PA “I have here two stones that, on 27 May 1914, were thrown at the palace during a suffragette protest. The label on this one reads: ‘If a constitutional deputation is refused, we must present a stone message.’ This one says: ‘Constitutional methods being ignored drive us to window smashing.’ “The Times reported two days afterwards: ‘Between 11 and 12 o’clock on Wednesday, two women succeeded in evading the sentries at Buckingham Palace and entered the quadrangle. They threw stones at the windows and broke two panes of glass before the sentries intervened.’” The women were arrested, but the palace’s master of the household refused to prosecute, and Queen Mary, wife of King George V, kept the stones, Camilla said. “I thought today we might, to quote Shakespeare, find “sermons in stones”, she added. While not encouraging her audience to take similar actions, she said, and “while the more destructive steps taken by the suffragettes could not be condoned today, I wanted to show you these stones because of what they represent. “In 1914, I believe, they represented hope to the women who threw them – hope that, in the future, they would not be victims of their history, nor of the social and economic forces that were ranged against gender equality. Above all, they represented the hope that it was possible, as Christabel Pankhurst said, “to make this world a better place for women”. She told the Buckingham Palace audience, which included some schoolgirls, that 110 years later they had been invited because they too represented hope for women. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Camilla meets schoolchildren at the event. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla was presented with her own personalised Barbie doll and joked that it made her look 50 years younger. Holding the miniature version of herself during the event celebrating Wow and International Women’s Day, she said: “You’ve taken about 50 years off my life – we should all have a Barbie.” The one-off Barbie was dressed in a scaled down version of an outfit worn a number of times by Camilla: a blue Fiona Clare dress, black cape by Amanda Wakeley and Eliot Zed black boots. The doll’s hair was closely modelled on Camilla’s curls as was the jewellery worn by the toy, which featured a Wow badge also worn by her. The presentation was made onboard the Wow Girls festival bus, which has toured the country promoting gender equality and made a final stop at the palace, where Camilla toured it with Queen Mathilde of Belgium and the Duchess of Gloucester. Explore more on these topics Queen Camilla Women Protest Monarchy Children Politics past news Share Reuse this content Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP View image in fullscreen Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP View image in fullscreen Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP View image in fullscreen Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP View image in fullscreen Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla with a Barbie doll in her image at a reception for the Women of the World festival in London. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP This article is more than 1 year old Camilla lauds suffragette stones of ‘hope’ – and gets very own Barbie doll This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Camilla lauds suffragette stones of ‘hope’ – and gets very own Barbie doll This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Camilla lauds suffragette stones of ‘hope’ – and gets very own Barbie doll This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old In speech as president of Women of the World festival, queen shows audience objects thrown at palace windows in 1914 protest In speech as president of Women of the World festival, queen shows audience objects thrown at palace windows in 1914 protest In speech as president of Women of the World festival, queen shows audience objects thrown at palace windows in 1914 protest Two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows during a suffragette protest more than a century ago and saved for posterity represented “hope to the women who threw them”, Queen Camilla has told equality campaigners. While some of the suffragette’s more destructive tactics could not be condoned today, Camilla said there was “sermon in the stones” that had cracked two window panes but were kept by the royal family. In a speech as president of the Wow (Women of the World) festival she told guests including Dame Helen Mirren, Doreen Lawrence, Spice Girl Mel B and Dame Kelly Holmes: “I would like to begin with a ‘show and tell’. View image in fullscreen The two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows by suffragettes in 1914. Photograph: Paul Grover/The Telegraph/PA “I have here two stones that, on 27 May 1914, were thrown at the palace during a suffragette protest. The label on this one reads: ‘If a constitutional deputation is refused, we must present a stone message.’ This one says: ‘Constitutional methods being ignored drive us to window smashing.’ “The Times reported two days afterwards: ‘Between 11 and 12 o’clock on Wednesday, two women succeeded in evading the sentries at Buckingham Palace and entered the quadrangle. They threw stones at the windows and broke two panes of glass before the sentries intervened.’” The women were arrested, but the palace’s master of the household refused to prosecute, and Queen Mary, wife of King George V, kept the stones, Camilla said. “I thought today we might, to quote Shakespeare, find “sermons in stones”, she added. While not encouraging her audience to take similar actions, she said, and “while the more destructive steps taken by the suffragettes could not be condoned today, I wanted to show you these stones because of what they represent. “In 1914, I believe, they represented hope to the women who threw them – hope that, in the future, they would not be victims of their history, nor of the social and economic forces that were ranged against gender equality. Above all, they represented the hope that it was possible, as Christabel Pankhurst said, “to make this world a better place for women”. She told the Buckingham Palace audience, which included some schoolgirls, that 110 years later they had been invited because they too represented hope for women. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Camilla meets schoolchildren at the event. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla was presented with her own personalised Barbie doll and joked that it made her look 50 years younger. Holding the miniature version of herself during the event celebrating Wow and International Women’s Day, she said: “You’ve taken about 50 years off my life – we should all have a Barbie.” The one-off Barbie was dressed in a scaled down version of an outfit worn a number of times by Camilla: a blue Fiona Clare dress, black cape by Amanda Wakeley and Eliot Zed black boots. The doll’s hair was closely modelled on Camilla’s curls as was the jewellery worn by the toy, which featured a Wow badge also worn by her. The presentation was made onboard the Wow Girls festival bus, which has toured the country promoting gender equality and made a final stop at the palace, where Camilla toured it with Queen Mathilde of Belgium and the Duchess of Gloucester. Explore more on these topics Queen Camilla Women Protest Monarchy Children Politics past news Share Reuse this content Two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows during a suffragette protest more than a century ago and saved for posterity represented “hope to the women who threw them”, Queen Camilla has told equality campaigners. While some of the suffragette’s more destructive tactics could not be condoned today, Camilla said there was “sermon in the stones” that had cracked two window panes but were kept by the royal family. In a speech as president of the Wow (Women of the World) festival she told guests including Dame Helen Mirren, Doreen Lawrence, Spice Girl Mel B and Dame Kelly Holmes: “I would like to begin with a ‘show and tell’. View image in fullscreen The two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows by suffragettes in 1914. Photograph: Paul Grover/The Telegraph/PA “I have here two stones that, on 27 May 1914, were thrown at the palace during a suffragette protest. The label on this one reads: ‘If a constitutional deputation is refused, we must present a stone message.’ This one says: ‘Constitutional methods being ignored drive us to window smashing.’ “The Times reported two days afterwards: ‘Between 11 and 12 o’clock on Wednesday, two women succeeded in evading the sentries at Buckingham Palace and entered the quadrangle. They threw stones at the windows and broke two panes of glass before the sentries intervened.’” The women were arrested, but the palace’s master of the household refused to prosecute, and Queen Mary, wife of King George V, kept the stones, Camilla said. “I thought today we might, to quote Shakespeare, find “sermons in stones”, she added. While not encouraging her audience to take similar actions, she said, and “while the more destructive steps taken by the suffragettes could not be condoned today, I wanted to show you these stones because of what they represent. “In 1914, I believe, they represented hope to the women who threw them – hope that, in the future, they would not be victims of their history, nor of the social and economic forces that were ranged against gender equality. Above all, they represented the hope that it was possible, as Christabel Pankhurst said, “to make this world a better place for women”. She told the Buckingham Palace audience, which included some schoolgirls, that 110 years later they had been invited because they too represented hope for women. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Camilla meets schoolchildren at the event. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla was presented with her own personalised Barbie doll and joked that it made her look 50 years younger. Holding the miniature version of herself during the event celebrating Wow and International Women’s Day, she said: “You’ve taken about 50 years off my life – we should all have a Barbie.” The one-off Barbie was dressed in a scaled down version of an outfit worn a number of times by Camilla: a blue Fiona Clare dress, black cape by Amanda Wakeley and Eliot Zed black boots. The doll’s hair was closely modelled on Camilla’s curls as was the jewellery worn by the toy, which featured a Wow badge also worn by her. The presentation was made onboard the Wow Girls festival bus, which has toured the country promoting gender equality and made a final stop at the palace, where Camilla toured it with Queen Mathilde of Belgium and the Duchess of Gloucester. Explore more on these topics Queen Camilla Women Protest Monarchy Children Politics past news Share Reuse this content Two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows during a suffragette protest more than a century ago and saved for posterity represented “hope to the women who threw them”, Queen Camilla has told equality campaigners. While some of the suffragette’s more destructive tactics could not be condoned today, Camilla said there was “sermon in the stones” that had cracked two window panes but were kept by the royal family. In a speech as president of the Wow (Women of the World) festival she told guests including Dame Helen Mirren, Doreen Lawrence, Spice Girl Mel B and Dame Kelly Holmes: “I would like to begin with a ‘show and tell’. View image in fullscreen The two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows by suffragettes in 1914. Photograph: Paul Grover/The Telegraph/PA “I have here two stones that, on 27 May 1914, were thrown at the palace during a suffragette protest. The label on this one reads: ‘If a constitutional deputation is refused, we must present a stone message.’ This one says: ‘Constitutional methods being ignored drive us to window smashing.’ “The Times reported two days afterwards: ‘Between 11 and 12 o’clock on Wednesday, two women succeeded in evading the sentries at Buckingham Palace and entered the quadrangle. They threw stones at the windows and broke two panes of glass before the sentries intervened.’” The women were arrested, but the palace’s master of the household refused to prosecute, and Queen Mary, wife of King George V, kept the stones, Camilla said. “I thought today we might, to quote Shakespeare, find “sermons in stones”, she added. While not encouraging her audience to take similar actions, she said, and “while the more destructive steps taken by the suffragettes could not be condoned today, I wanted to show you these stones because of what they represent. “In 1914, I believe, they represented hope to the women who threw them – hope that, in the future, they would not be victims of their history, nor of the social and economic forces that were ranged against gender equality. Above all, they represented the hope that it was possible, as Christabel Pankhurst said, “to make this world a better place for women”. She told the Buckingham Palace audience, which included some schoolgirls, that 110 years later they had been invited because they too represented hope for women. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Camilla meets schoolchildren at the event. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla was presented with her own personalised Barbie doll and joked that it made her look 50 years younger. Holding the miniature version of herself during the event celebrating Wow and International Women’s Day, she said: “You’ve taken about 50 years off my life – we should all have a Barbie.” The one-off Barbie was dressed in a scaled down version of an outfit worn a number of times by Camilla: a blue Fiona Clare dress, black cape by Amanda Wakeley and Eliot Zed black boots. The doll’s hair was closely modelled on Camilla’s curls as was the jewellery worn by the toy, which featured a Wow badge also worn by her. The presentation was made onboard the Wow Girls festival bus, which has toured the country promoting gender equality and made a final stop at the palace, where Camilla toured it with Queen Mathilde of Belgium and the Duchess of Gloucester. Two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows during a suffragette protest more than a century ago and saved for posterity represented “hope to the women who threw them”, Queen Camilla has told equality campaigners. While some of the suffragette’s more destructive tactics could not be condoned today, Camilla said there was “sermon in the stones” that had cracked two window panes but were kept by the royal family. In a speech as president of the Wow (Women of the World) festival she told guests including Dame Helen Mirren, Doreen Lawrence, Spice Girl Mel B and Dame Kelly Holmes: “I would like to begin with a ‘show and tell’. View image in fullscreen The two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows by suffragettes in 1914. Photograph: Paul Grover/The Telegraph/PA “I have here two stones that, on 27 May 1914, were thrown at the palace during a suffragette protest. The label on this one reads: ‘If a constitutional deputation is refused, we must present a stone message.’ This one says: ‘Constitutional methods being ignored drive us to window smashing.’ “The Times reported two days afterwards: ‘Between 11 and 12 o’clock on Wednesday, two women succeeded in evading the sentries at Buckingham Palace and entered the quadrangle. They threw stones at the windows and broke two panes of glass before the sentries intervened.’” The women were arrested, but the palace’s master of the household refused to prosecute, and Queen Mary, wife of King George V, kept the stones, Camilla said. “I thought today we might, to quote Shakespeare, find “sermons in stones”, she added. While not encouraging her audience to take similar actions, she said, and “while the more destructive steps taken by the suffragettes could not be condoned today, I wanted to show you these stones because of what they represent. “In 1914, I believe, they represented hope to the women who threw them – hope that, in the future, they would not be victims of their history, nor of the social and economic forces that were ranged against gender equality. Above all, they represented the hope that it was possible, as Christabel Pankhurst said, “to make this world a better place for women”. She told the Buckingham Palace audience, which included some schoolgirls, that 110 years later they had been invited because they too represented hope for women. skip past newsletter promotion after newsletter promotion View image in fullscreen Camilla meets schoolchildren at the event. Photograph: Paul Grover/AP Camilla was presented with her own personalised Barbie doll and joked that it made her look 50 years younger. Holding the miniature version of herself during the event celebrating Wow and International Women’s Day, she said: “You’ve taken about 50 years off my life – we should all have a Barbie.” The one-off Barbie was dressed in a scaled down version of an outfit worn a number of times by Camilla: a blue Fiona Clare dress, black cape by Amanda Wakeley and Eliot Zed black boots. The doll’s hair was closely modelled on Camilla’s curls as was the jewellery worn by the toy, which featured a Wow badge also worn by her. The presentation was made onboard the Wow Girls festival bus, which has toured the country promoting gender equality and made a final stop at the palace, where Camilla toured it with Queen Mathilde of Belgium and the Duchess of Gloucester. Two stones thrown at Buckingham Palace windows during a suffragette protest more than a century ago and saved for posterity represented “hope to the women who threw them”, Queen Camilla has told equality campaigners. While some of the suffragette’s more destructive tactics could not be condoned today, Camilla said there was “sermon in the stones” that had cracked two window panes but were kept by the royal family. In a speech as president of the Wow (Women of the World) festival she told guests including Dame Helen Mirren, Doreen Lawrence, Spice Girl Mel B and Dame Kelly Holmes: “I would like to begin with a ‘show and tell’. “I have here two stones that, on 27 May 1914, were thrown at the palace during a suffragette protest. The label on this one reads: ‘If a constitutional deputation is refused, we must present a stone message.’ This one says: ‘Constitutional methods being ignored drive us to window smashing.’ “The Times reported two days afterwards: ‘Between 11 and 12 o’clock on Wednesday, two women succeeded in evading the sentries at Buckingham Palace and entered the quadrangle. They threw stones at the windows and broke two panes of glass before the sentries intervened.’” The women were arrested, but the palace’s master of the household refused to prosecute, and Queen Mary, wife of King George V, kept the stones, Camilla said. “I thought today we might, to quote Shakespeare, find “sermons in stones”, she added. While not encouraging her audience to take similar actions, she said, and “while the more destructive steps taken by the suffragettes could not be condoned today, I wanted to show you these stones because of what they represent. “In 1914, I believe, they represented hope to the women who threw them – hope that, in the future, they would not be victims of their history, nor of the social and economic forces that were ranged against gender equality. Above all, they represented the hope that it was possible, as Christabel Pankhurst said, “to make this world a better place for women”. She told the Buckingham Palace audience, which included some schoolgirls, that 110 years later they had been invited because they too represented hope for women. Camilla was presented with her own personalised Barbie doll and joked that it made her look 50 years younger. Holding the miniature version of herself during the event celebrating Wow and International Women’s Day, she said: “You’ve taken about 50 years off my life – we should all have a Barbie.” The one-off Barbie was dressed in a scaled down version of an outfit worn a number of times by Camilla: a blue Fiona Clare dress, black cape by Amanda Wakeley and Eliot Zed black boots. The doll’s hair was closely modelled on Camilla’s curls as was the jewellery worn by the toy, which featured a Wow badge also worn by her. The presentation was made onboard the Wow Girls festival bus, which has toured the country promoting gender equality and made a final stop at the palace, where Camilla toured it with Queen Mathilde of Belgium and the Duchess of Gloucester. Explore more on these topics Queen Camilla Women Protest Monarchy Children Politics past news Share Reuse this content Queen Camilla Women Protest Monarchy Children Politics past news |
Palestinian citizen of Israel granted UK asylum in case said to be unprecedented
‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Palestinian citizen of Israel granted UK asylum in case said to be unprecedented This article is more than 1 year old ‘Hasan’, 24, argued he would face persecution in Israel on grounds of his race, faith and its ‘apartheid regime’ A Palestinian citizen of Israel has been granted asylum in the UK after claiming he would face persecution in his home country on the grounds of his race, his Muslim faith and his opinion that Israel “is governed by an apartheid regime”. “Hasan”, whose real identity is not being disclosed for his own protection, has attended pro-Palestinian protests in the UK, and his lawyers also argued that his activism would place him at increased risk of hostile attention on his return. His lawyers said on Tuesday they believed the Home Office decision was unprecedented in the case of a Palestinian who held an Israeli passport. The 24-year-old is understood to have spent most of his life in the UK. He had claimed asylum to avoid being sent to Israel, and a first-tier tribunal hearing had been due to take place today. However, the Home Office unexpectedly caved in on Monday and granted Hasan asylum, so avoiding a hearing in which his legal team were intending to argue that Palestinian citizens of Israel were unsafe, and in particular those that were willing to speak out. It was Hasan’s belief, his lawyers said, that Israel was governed by “an apartheid regime that engages in systematic and pervasive discrimination, persecution and violence touching on all aspects of Palestinian life”. Hasan’s lawyers had made a supplementary claim after the start of the Hamas-Israel war, which followed Hamas’s surprise attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023. They argued that the security situation for Palestinian citizens of Israel had worsened further as the war in Gaza had gone on. About a fifth of Israel’s population – about 2 million people – is Palestinian although that figure also includes the Arab population of East Jerusalem who have a lesser status, that of permanent residents. Franck Magennis, a barrister at Garden Court chambers, said while it was not uncommon for Palestinians from Gaza to obtain asylum in the UK, he could not find reference to a similar case applying to a Palestinian from Israel. “What’s so shocking about this case is that Israel is normally considered a staunch ally of the UK government, and that the UK considers it the only democracy in the Middle East and in no way an apartheid regime. But what this reflects is a staggering contradiction in the heart of British foreign policy,” Magennis said. Israel has long rejected arguments that it pursues an apartheid-like policy towards Palestinians. It argues that its war against Hamas was undertaken in self-defence and is aimed at elimination of the group as a political and military threat. The Home Office did not give any reasons for accepting Hasan’s asylum claim when it withdrew its objections on Monday. When contacted on Tuesday, officials said they did not routinely comment on individual cases. A Home Office spokesperson added: “All asylum claims are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with the immigration rules. Where more information is provided or becomes available, the outcome of a decision can change.” British foreign policy towards Israel, initially strongly supportive after the Hamas attack, has shifted in recent weeks to focusing on the need for a humanitarian pause in the fighting in Gaza, where the bulk of the strip’s 2.3 million prewar population are sheltering in dire conditions in and around Rafah in the south. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Home Office Palestine Israel Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Palestinian citizen of Israel granted UK asylum in case said to be unprecedented This article is more than 1 year old ‘Hasan’, 24, argued he would face persecution in Israel on grounds of his race, faith and its ‘apartheid regime’ A Palestinian citizen of Israel has been granted asylum in the UK after claiming he would face persecution in his home country on the grounds of his race, his Muslim faith and his opinion that Israel “is governed by an apartheid regime”. “Hasan”, whose real identity is not being disclosed for his own protection, has attended pro-Palestinian protests in the UK, and his lawyers also argued that his activism would place him at increased risk of hostile attention on his return. His lawyers said on Tuesday they believed the Home Office decision was unprecedented in the case of a Palestinian who held an Israeli passport. The 24-year-old is understood to have spent most of his life in the UK. He had claimed asylum to avoid being sent to Israel, and a first-tier tribunal hearing had been due to take place today. However, the Home Office unexpectedly caved in on Monday and granted Hasan asylum, so avoiding a hearing in which his legal team were intending to argue that Palestinian citizens of Israel were unsafe, and in particular those that were willing to speak out. It was Hasan’s belief, his lawyers said, that Israel was governed by “an apartheid regime that engages in systematic and pervasive discrimination, persecution and violence touching on all aspects of Palestinian life”. Hasan’s lawyers had made a supplementary claim after the start of the Hamas-Israel war, which followed Hamas’s surprise attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023. They argued that the security situation for Palestinian citizens of Israel had worsened further as the war in Gaza had gone on. About a fifth of Israel’s population – about 2 million people – is Palestinian although that figure also includes the Arab population of East Jerusalem who have a lesser status, that of permanent residents. Franck Magennis, a barrister at Garden Court chambers, said while it was not uncommon for Palestinians from Gaza to obtain asylum in the UK, he could not find reference to a similar case applying to a Palestinian from Israel. “What’s so shocking about this case is that Israel is normally considered a staunch ally of the UK government, and that the UK considers it the only democracy in the Middle East and in no way an apartheid regime. But what this reflects is a staggering contradiction in the heart of British foreign policy,” Magennis said. Israel has long rejected arguments that it pursues an apartheid-like policy towards Palestinians. It argues that its war against Hamas was undertaken in self-defence and is aimed at elimination of the group as a political and military threat. The Home Office did not give any reasons for accepting Hasan’s asylum claim when it withdrew its objections on Monday. When contacted on Tuesday, officials said they did not routinely comment on individual cases. A Home Office spokesperson added: “All asylum claims are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with the immigration rules. Where more information is provided or becomes available, the outcome of a decision can change.” British foreign policy towards Israel, initially strongly supportive after the Hamas attack, has shifted in recent weeks to focusing on the need for a humanitarian pause in the fighting in Gaza, where the bulk of the strip’s 2.3 million prewar population are sheltering in dire conditions in and around Rafah in the south. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Home Office Palestine Israel Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock View image in fullscreen ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock ‘Hasan’, a Palestinian citizen, has attended pro-Palestine protests in the UK and his lawyers argued his activism would put him at risk if he were to return to Israel. Photograph: Steve Taylor/Sopa Images/Rex/Shutterstock This article is more than 1 year old Palestinian citizen of Israel granted UK asylum in case said to be unprecedented This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Palestinian citizen of Israel granted UK asylum in case said to be unprecedented This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old Palestinian citizen of Israel granted UK asylum in case said to be unprecedented This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old ‘Hasan’, 24, argued he would face persecution in Israel on grounds of his race, faith and its ‘apartheid regime’ ‘Hasan’, 24, argued he would face persecution in Israel on grounds of his race, faith and its ‘apartheid regime’ ‘Hasan’, 24, argued he would face persecution in Israel on grounds of his race, faith and its ‘apartheid regime’ A Palestinian citizen of Israel has been granted asylum in the UK after claiming he would face persecution in his home country on the grounds of his race, his Muslim faith and his opinion that Israel “is governed by an apartheid regime”. “Hasan”, whose real identity is not being disclosed for his own protection, has attended pro-Palestinian protests in the UK, and his lawyers also argued that his activism would place him at increased risk of hostile attention on his return. His lawyers said on Tuesday they believed the Home Office decision was unprecedented in the case of a Palestinian who held an Israeli passport. The 24-year-old is understood to have spent most of his life in the UK. He had claimed asylum to avoid being sent to Israel, and a first-tier tribunal hearing had been due to take place today. However, the Home Office unexpectedly caved in on Monday and granted Hasan asylum, so avoiding a hearing in which his legal team were intending to argue that Palestinian citizens of Israel were unsafe, and in particular those that were willing to speak out. It was Hasan’s belief, his lawyers said, that Israel was governed by “an apartheid regime that engages in systematic and pervasive discrimination, persecution and violence touching on all aspects of Palestinian life”. Hasan’s lawyers had made a supplementary claim after the start of the Hamas-Israel war, which followed Hamas’s surprise attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023. They argued that the security situation for Palestinian citizens of Israel had worsened further as the war in Gaza had gone on. About a fifth of Israel’s population – about 2 million people – is Palestinian although that figure also includes the Arab population of East Jerusalem who have a lesser status, that of permanent residents. Franck Magennis, a barrister at Garden Court chambers, said while it was not uncommon for Palestinians from Gaza to obtain asylum in the UK, he could not find reference to a similar case applying to a Palestinian from Israel. “What’s so shocking about this case is that Israel is normally considered a staunch ally of the UK government, and that the UK considers it the only democracy in the Middle East and in no way an apartheid regime. But what this reflects is a staggering contradiction in the heart of British foreign policy,” Magennis said. Israel has long rejected arguments that it pursues an apartheid-like policy towards Palestinians. It argues that its war against Hamas was undertaken in self-defence and is aimed at elimination of the group as a political and military threat. The Home Office did not give any reasons for accepting Hasan’s asylum claim when it withdrew its objections on Monday. When contacted on Tuesday, officials said they did not routinely comment on individual cases. A Home Office spokesperson added: “All asylum claims are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with the immigration rules. Where more information is provided or becomes available, the outcome of a decision can change.” British foreign policy towards Israel, initially strongly supportive after the Hamas attack, has shifted in recent weeks to focusing on the need for a humanitarian pause in the fighting in Gaza, where the bulk of the strip’s 2.3 million prewar population are sheltering in dire conditions in and around Rafah in the south. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Home Office Palestine Israel Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content A Palestinian citizen of Israel has been granted asylum in the UK after claiming he would face persecution in his home country on the grounds of his race, his Muslim faith and his opinion that Israel “is governed by an apartheid regime”. “Hasan”, whose real identity is not being disclosed for his own protection, has attended pro-Palestinian protests in the UK, and his lawyers also argued that his activism would place him at increased risk of hostile attention on his return. His lawyers said on Tuesday they believed the Home Office decision was unprecedented in the case of a Palestinian who held an Israeli passport. The 24-year-old is understood to have spent most of his life in the UK. He had claimed asylum to avoid being sent to Israel, and a first-tier tribunal hearing had been due to take place today. However, the Home Office unexpectedly caved in on Monday and granted Hasan asylum, so avoiding a hearing in which his legal team were intending to argue that Palestinian citizens of Israel were unsafe, and in particular those that were willing to speak out. It was Hasan’s belief, his lawyers said, that Israel was governed by “an apartheid regime that engages in systematic and pervasive discrimination, persecution and violence touching on all aspects of Palestinian life”. Hasan’s lawyers had made a supplementary claim after the start of the Hamas-Israel war, which followed Hamas’s surprise attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023. They argued that the security situation for Palestinian citizens of Israel had worsened further as the war in Gaza had gone on. About a fifth of Israel’s population – about 2 million people – is Palestinian although that figure also includes the Arab population of East Jerusalem who have a lesser status, that of permanent residents. Franck Magennis, a barrister at Garden Court chambers, said while it was not uncommon for Palestinians from Gaza to obtain asylum in the UK, he could not find reference to a similar case applying to a Palestinian from Israel. “What’s so shocking about this case is that Israel is normally considered a staunch ally of the UK government, and that the UK considers it the only democracy in the Middle East and in no way an apartheid regime. But what this reflects is a staggering contradiction in the heart of British foreign policy,” Magennis said. Israel has long rejected arguments that it pursues an apartheid-like policy towards Palestinians. It argues that its war against Hamas was undertaken in self-defence and is aimed at elimination of the group as a political and military threat. The Home Office did not give any reasons for accepting Hasan’s asylum claim when it withdrew its objections on Monday. When contacted on Tuesday, officials said they did not routinely comment on individual cases. A Home Office spokesperson added: “All asylum claims are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with the immigration rules. Where more information is provided or becomes available, the outcome of a decision can change.” British foreign policy towards Israel, initially strongly supportive after the Hamas attack, has shifted in recent weeks to focusing on the need for a humanitarian pause in the fighting in Gaza, where the bulk of the strip’s 2.3 million prewar population are sheltering in dire conditions in and around Rafah in the south. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Home Office Palestine Israel Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content A Palestinian citizen of Israel has been granted asylum in the UK after claiming he would face persecution in his home country on the grounds of his race, his Muslim faith and his opinion that Israel “is governed by an apartheid regime”. “Hasan”, whose real identity is not being disclosed for his own protection, has attended pro-Palestinian protests in the UK, and his lawyers also argued that his activism would place him at increased risk of hostile attention on his return. His lawyers said on Tuesday they believed the Home Office decision was unprecedented in the case of a Palestinian who held an Israeli passport. The 24-year-old is understood to have spent most of his life in the UK. He had claimed asylum to avoid being sent to Israel, and a first-tier tribunal hearing had been due to take place today. However, the Home Office unexpectedly caved in on Monday and granted Hasan asylum, so avoiding a hearing in which his legal team were intending to argue that Palestinian citizens of Israel were unsafe, and in particular those that were willing to speak out. It was Hasan’s belief, his lawyers said, that Israel was governed by “an apartheid regime that engages in systematic and pervasive discrimination, persecution and violence touching on all aspects of Palestinian life”. Hasan’s lawyers had made a supplementary claim after the start of the Hamas-Israel war, which followed Hamas’s surprise attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023. They argued that the security situation for Palestinian citizens of Israel had worsened further as the war in Gaza had gone on. About a fifth of Israel’s population – about 2 million people – is Palestinian although that figure also includes the Arab population of East Jerusalem who have a lesser status, that of permanent residents. Franck Magennis, a barrister at Garden Court chambers, said while it was not uncommon for Palestinians from Gaza to obtain asylum in the UK, he could not find reference to a similar case applying to a Palestinian from Israel. “What’s so shocking about this case is that Israel is normally considered a staunch ally of the UK government, and that the UK considers it the only democracy in the Middle East and in no way an apartheid regime. But what this reflects is a staggering contradiction in the heart of British foreign policy,” Magennis said. Israel has long rejected arguments that it pursues an apartheid-like policy towards Palestinians. It argues that its war against Hamas was undertaken in self-defence and is aimed at elimination of the group as a political and military threat. The Home Office did not give any reasons for accepting Hasan’s asylum claim when it withdrew its objections on Monday. When contacted on Tuesday, officials said they did not routinely comment on individual cases. A Home Office spokesperson added: “All asylum claims are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with the immigration rules. Where more information is provided or becomes available, the outcome of a decision can change.” British foreign policy towards Israel, initially strongly supportive after the Hamas attack, has shifted in recent weeks to focusing on the need for a humanitarian pause in the fighting in Gaza, where the bulk of the strip’s 2.3 million prewar population are sheltering in dire conditions in and around Rafah in the south. A Palestinian citizen of Israel has been granted asylum in the UK after claiming he would face persecution in his home country on the grounds of his race, his Muslim faith and his opinion that Israel “is governed by an apartheid regime”. “Hasan”, whose real identity is not being disclosed for his own protection, has attended pro-Palestinian protests in the UK, and his lawyers also argued that his activism would place him at increased risk of hostile attention on his return. His lawyers said on Tuesday they believed the Home Office decision was unprecedented in the case of a Palestinian who held an Israeli passport. The 24-year-old is understood to have spent most of his life in the UK. He had claimed asylum to avoid being sent to Israel, and a first-tier tribunal hearing had been due to take place today. However, the Home Office unexpectedly caved in on Monday and granted Hasan asylum, so avoiding a hearing in which his legal team were intending to argue that Palestinian citizens of Israel were unsafe, and in particular those that were willing to speak out. It was Hasan’s belief, his lawyers said, that Israel was governed by “an apartheid regime that engages in systematic and pervasive discrimination, persecution and violence touching on all aspects of Palestinian life”. Hasan’s lawyers had made a supplementary claim after the start of the Hamas-Israel war, which followed Hamas’s surprise attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023. They argued that the security situation for Palestinian citizens of Israel had worsened further as the war in Gaza had gone on. About a fifth of Israel’s population – about 2 million people – is Palestinian although that figure also includes the Arab population of East Jerusalem who have a lesser status, that of permanent residents. Franck Magennis, a barrister at Garden Court chambers, said while it was not uncommon for Palestinians from Gaza to obtain asylum in the UK, he could not find reference to a similar case applying to a Palestinian from Israel. “What’s so shocking about this case is that Israel is normally considered a staunch ally of the UK government, and that the UK considers it the only democracy in the Middle East and in no way an apartheid regime. But what this reflects is a staggering contradiction in the heart of British foreign policy,” Magennis said. Israel has long rejected arguments that it pursues an apartheid-like policy towards Palestinians. It argues that its war against Hamas was undertaken in self-defence and is aimed at elimination of the group as a political and military threat. The Home Office did not give any reasons for accepting Hasan’s asylum claim when it withdrew its objections on Monday. When contacted on Tuesday, officials said they did not routinely comment on individual cases. A Home Office spokesperson added: “All asylum claims are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with the immigration rules. Where more information is provided or becomes available, the outcome of a decision can change.” British foreign policy towards Israel, initially strongly supportive after the Hamas attack, has shifted in recent weeks to focusing on the need for a humanitarian pause in the fighting in Gaza, where the bulk of the strip’s 2.3 million prewar population are sheltering in dire conditions in and around Rafah in the south. A Palestinian citizen of Israel has been granted asylum in the UK after claiming he would face persecution in his home country on the grounds of his race, his Muslim faith and his opinion that Israel “is governed by an apartheid regime”. “Hasan”, whose real identity is not being disclosed for his own protection, has attended pro-Palestinian protests in the UK, and his lawyers also argued that his activism would place him at increased risk of hostile attention on his return. His lawyers said on Tuesday they believed the Home Office decision was unprecedented in the case of a Palestinian who held an Israeli passport. The 24-year-old is understood to have spent most of his life in the UK. He had claimed asylum to avoid being sent to Israel, and a first-tier tribunal hearing had been due to take place today. However, the Home Office unexpectedly caved in on Monday and granted Hasan asylum, so avoiding a hearing in which his legal team were intending to argue that Palestinian citizens of Israel were unsafe, and in particular those that were willing to speak out. It was Hasan’s belief, his lawyers said, that Israel was governed by “an apartheid regime that engages in systematic and pervasive discrimination, persecution and violence touching on all aspects of Palestinian life”. Hasan’s lawyers had made a supplementary claim after the start of the Hamas-Israel war, which followed Hamas’s surprise attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023. They argued that the security situation for Palestinian citizens of Israel had worsened further as the war in Gaza had gone on. About a fifth of Israel’s population – about 2 million people – is Palestinian although that figure also includes the Arab population of East Jerusalem who have a lesser status, that of permanent residents. Franck Magennis, a barrister at Garden Court chambers, said while it was not uncommon for Palestinians from Gaza to obtain asylum in the UK, he could not find reference to a similar case applying to a Palestinian from Israel. “What’s so shocking about this case is that Israel is normally considered a staunch ally of the UK government, and that the UK considers it the only democracy in the Middle East and in no way an apartheid regime. But what this reflects is a staggering contradiction in the heart of British foreign policy,” Magennis said. Israel has long rejected arguments that it pursues an apartheid-like policy towards Palestinians. It argues that its war against Hamas was undertaken in self-defence and is aimed at elimination of the group as a political and military threat. The Home Office did not give any reasons for accepting Hasan’s asylum claim when it withdrew its objections on Monday. When contacted on Tuesday, officials said they did not routinely comment on individual cases. A Home Office spokesperson added: “All asylum claims are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with the immigration rules. Where more information is provided or becomes available, the outcome of a decision can change.” British foreign policy towards Israel, initially strongly supportive after the Hamas attack, has shifted in recent weeks to focusing on the need for a humanitarian pause in the fighting in Gaza, where the bulk of the strip’s 2.3 million prewar population are sheltering in dire conditions in and around Rafah in the south. Explore more on these topics Immigration and asylum Home Office Palestine Israel Middle East and north Africa news Share Reuse this content Immigration and asylum Home Office Palestine Israel Middle East and north Africa news |
Diane Abbott says it is ‘frightening’ to hear what Tory donor Frank Hester said about her – as it happened
Diane Abbott has issued a statement to ITV’s Good Morning Britain about the Frank Hester comments . In it she said: It is frightening. I live in Hackney, I don’t drive, so I find myself, at weekends, popping on a bus or even walking places, more than most MPs. I am a single woman and that makes me vulnerable anyway. But to hear someone talking like this is worrying. For all of my career as an MP I have thought it important not to live in a bubble, but to mix and mingle with ordinary people. The fact that two MPs have been murdered in recent years makes talk like this all the more alarming. I’m currently not a member of the parliamentary Labour party, but remain a member of the Labour party itself, so I am hoping for public support from Keir Starmer. My statement made to Good Morning Britain this morning. https://t.co/ACDEWhHGcg — Diane Abbott MP (@HackneyAbbott) March 12, 2024 My statement made to Good Morning Britain this morning. https://t.co/ACDEWhHGcg |
Michael Gove on extremism: the imperturbable in pursuit of the indefinable
Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA View image in fullscreen Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA This article is more than 1 year old Michael Gove on extremism: the imperturbable in pursuit of the indefinable This article is more than 1 year old Zoe Williams The levelling up secretary was untroubled as he courteously and soothingly unveiled guidance full of sinkholes M ichael Gove stood before the house with his elaborately courteous mien dialled up to the max. The secretary for levelling up is so polite now that it reads as a kind of schoolboy humility as he gallops through his words, mindful of the great honour of his colleagues’ attention. “The United Kingdom is a success story,” he said, “a multinational, multi-ethnic, multifaith democracy, stronger because of our diversity.” This was the preface to the government’s new extremism guidelines , and there’s a world in which a celebration of diversity would be a reassuring starting point. That’s not, unfortunately, the world we’re in: the text of this guidance, as Gove describes it, doesn’t make a huge amount of sense, the subtext warps and weaves with every intervention, and the context makes a joke of the whole thing. Let’s not forget the lovely manners, though. So, nothing to worry about, folks, and barely anything to see: the new definition of extremism “will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech”. Even if it did, it wouldn’t be law, it would merely be guidance. Even if you find yourself denominated as an extremist organisation, this will only affect you in so far as the government itself won’t engage with or fund you. “Try getting a bank account once you’ve been branded by Gove as an extremist,” George Galloway put in later, and said it with a plangent authenticity that made it sound as if he actually had tried getting a bank account and, sucks to be him, was still cash-only for the time being. The case of Galloway is just one of many sinkholes in this guidance. Gove congratulated him warmly on his election, paused to admire George’s rhetorical flourish, before underlining that “nothing in this definition [of extremism] would prevent any honourable member from making his case”. But let’s take a quick squiz at what Gove thinks extremism means: “The promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate the fundamental rights of others, or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results.” The day after Galloway was elected, the Conservative party sent out an urgent fundraising email reminding people that he’d “called for the deaths of British soldiers” and saying his was a “toxic brand of politics”. Is he protected from the extremist tag by dint of having been elected? Or because Gove has known him a long time? Or because he wasn’t saying that ideologically, it was more of a throwaway remark? “The devil is not just in the detail but in the enforcement,” said Anna Firth, the Conservative MP for Southend West, who wants to see an end to the “hate marches” (others know them as demonstrations for a ceasefire in Gaza). I’m not sure the devil would be able to locate any details, in an idea so endlessly interpretable: “violence” and “intolerance” are themselves quite different. How do you know if you’re creating a permissive environment? How do you know if you’re doing it on purpose? Angela Rayner’s response was studiedly collegiate and low-impact. She agreed that “the whole house should work together” on the “scourge of Islamophobia, neo-nazism [and] antisemitism”, and asked some quite baggy questions about why it’d taken the government 13 years to address all this. What followed from the backbenches were variations on this theme: what about me? If I agree with gender-critical organisations, or fought apartheid, or oppose the bombardment of Gaza, or wanted peace in Northern Ireland before that was fashionable, does that make me an extremist? No, no (I precis), you guys are all fine, Gove soothed. But why? If extremism is anyone creating a permissive environment for negating the fundamental rights of others, it’s pretty rum for, say, an anti-abortion campaigner to be automatically exempt from the label (as a “conservative religious group”) just because Gove says so. Peter Bottomley weighed in on the issue to randomly defend Kathleen Stock, the gender-critical academic. “Filling in the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is an important thing,” he said. One wonders what filling in that gap would look like, and who gets to decide. Far more immediately problematic, of course, is the point raised by a number of MPs (Alison Thewliss, Andy Slaughter), that this definition of extremism would take in some high-profile Conservative donors, Frank Hester’s comments, but also Paul Marshall, who recently liked a tweet that read: “Civil war is coming. Once the Muslims get to 15 to 20% of the population, the current cold civil war will turn hot.” It sounds pretty extreme. But which of us can say for sure that he liked it intentionally? Does the Conservative party itself meet its own definition of extremism? Gove was untroubled by any possible contradictions; he took Milton’s Areopagitica as his guide, which won’t tell him very much about white replacement theory, but if there’s ever any trouble from the Levellers, he’s your man. It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it, to have this from the levelling up secretary. Nobody ever knew what “levelling up” meant. It turns out his bailiwick is a bit wider than supposed, to take in “all the things which nobody can agree what they mean”. Explore more on these topics Michael Gove The politics sketch Counter-terrorism policy comment Share Reuse this content Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA View image in fullscreen Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA This article is more than 1 year old Michael Gove on extremism: the imperturbable in pursuit of the indefinable This article is more than 1 year old Zoe Williams The levelling up secretary was untroubled as he courteously and soothingly unveiled guidance full of sinkholes M ichael Gove stood before the house with his elaborately courteous mien dialled up to the max. The secretary for levelling up is so polite now that it reads as a kind of schoolboy humility as he gallops through his words, mindful of the great honour of his colleagues’ attention. “The United Kingdom is a success story,” he said, “a multinational, multi-ethnic, multifaith democracy, stronger because of our diversity.” This was the preface to the government’s new extremism guidelines , and there’s a world in which a celebration of diversity would be a reassuring starting point. That’s not, unfortunately, the world we’re in: the text of this guidance, as Gove describes it, doesn’t make a huge amount of sense, the subtext warps and weaves with every intervention, and the context makes a joke of the whole thing. Let’s not forget the lovely manners, though. So, nothing to worry about, folks, and barely anything to see: the new definition of extremism “will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech”. Even if it did, it wouldn’t be law, it would merely be guidance. Even if you find yourself denominated as an extremist organisation, this will only affect you in so far as the government itself won’t engage with or fund you. “Try getting a bank account once you’ve been branded by Gove as an extremist,” George Galloway put in later, and said it with a plangent authenticity that made it sound as if he actually had tried getting a bank account and, sucks to be him, was still cash-only for the time being. The case of Galloway is just one of many sinkholes in this guidance. Gove congratulated him warmly on his election, paused to admire George’s rhetorical flourish, before underlining that “nothing in this definition [of extremism] would prevent any honourable member from making his case”. But let’s take a quick squiz at what Gove thinks extremism means: “The promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate the fundamental rights of others, or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results.” The day after Galloway was elected, the Conservative party sent out an urgent fundraising email reminding people that he’d “called for the deaths of British soldiers” and saying his was a “toxic brand of politics”. Is he protected from the extremist tag by dint of having been elected? Or because Gove has known him a long time? Or because he wasn’t saying that ideologically, it was more of a throwaway remark? “The devil is not just in the detail but in the enforcement,” said Anna Firth, the Conservative MP for Southend West, who wants to see an end to the “hate marches” (others know them as demonstrations for a ceasefire in Gaza). I’m not sure the devil would be able to locate any details, in an idea so endlessly interpretable: “violence” and “intolerance” are themselves quite different. How do you know if you’re creating a permissive environment? How do you know if you’re doing it on purpose? Angela Rayner’s response was studiedly collegiate and low-impact. She agreed that “the whole house should work together” on the “scourge of Islamophobia, neo-nazism [and] antisemitism”, and asked some quite baggy questions about why it’d taken the government 13 years to address all this. What followed from the backbenches were variations on this theme: what about me? If I agree with gender-critical organisations, or fought apartheid, or oppose the bombardment of Gaza, or wanted peace in Northern Ireland before that was fashionable, does that make me an extremist? No, no (I precis), you guys are all fine, Gove soothed. But why? If extremism is anyone creating a permissive environment for negating the fundamental rights of others, it’s pretty rum for, say, an anti-abortion campaigner to be automatically exempt from the label (as a “conservative religious group”) just because Gove says so. Peter Bottomley weighed in on the issue to randomly defend Kathleen Stock, the gender-critical academic. “Filling in the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is an important thing,” he said. One wonders what filling in that gap would look like, and who gets to decide. Far more immediately problematic, of course, is the point raised by a number of MPs (Alison Thewliss, Andy Slaughter), that this definition of extremism would take in some high-profile Conservative donors, Frank Hester’s comments, but also Paul Marshall, who recently liked a tweet that read: “Civil war is coming. Once the Muslims get to 15 to 20% of the population, the current cold civil war will turn hot.” It sounds pretty extreme. But which of us can say for sure that he liked it intentionally? Does the Conservative party itself meet its own definition of extremism? Gove was untroubled by any possible contradictions; he took Milton’s Areopagitica as his guide, which won’t tell him very much about white replacement theory, but if there’s ever any trouble from the Levellers, he’s your man. It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it, to have this from the levelling up secretary. Nobody ever knew what “levelling up” meant. It turns out his bailiwick is a bit wider than supposed, to take in “all the things which nobody can agree what they mean”. Explore more on these topics Michael Gove The politics sketch Counter-terrorism policy comment Share Reuse this content Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA View image in fullscreen Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA View image in fullscreen Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA View image in fullscreen Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA View image in fullscreen Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA Michael Gove: lovely manners, though. Photograph: UK Parliament/Maria Unger/PA This article is more than 1 year old Michael Gove on extremism: the imperturbable in pursuit of the indefinable This article is more than 1 year old Zoe Williams This article is more than 1 year old Michael Gove on extremism: the imperturbable in pursuit of the indefinable This article is more than 1 year old Zoe Williams This article is more than 1 year old Michael Gove on extremism: the imperturbable in pursuit of the indefinable This article is more than 1 year old Zoe Williams This article is more than 1 year old Michael Gove on extremism: the imperturbable in pursuit of the indefinable This article is more than 1 year old Zoe Williams This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old The levelling up secretary was untroubled as he courteously and soothingly unveiled guidance full of sinkholes The levelling up secretary was untroubled as he courteously and soothingly unveiled guidance full of sinkholes The levelling up secretary was untroubled as he courteously and soothingly unveiled guidance full of sinkholes M ichael Gove stood before the house with his elaborately courteous mien dialled up to the max. The secretary for levelling up is so polite now that it reads as a kind of schoolboy humility as he gallops through his words, mindful of the great honour of his colleagues’ attention. “The United Kingdom is a success story,” he said, “a multinational, multi-ethnic, multifaith democracy, stronger because of our diversity.” This was the preface to the government’s new extremism guidelines , and there’s a world in which a celebration of diversity would be a reassuring starting point. That’s not, unfortunately, the world we’re in: the text of this guidance, as Gove describes it, doesn’t make a huge amount of sense, the subtext warps and weaves with every intervention, and the context makes a joke of the whole thing. Let’s not forget the lovely manners, though. So, nothing to worry about, folks, and barely anything to see: the new definition of extremism “will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech”. Even if it did, it wouldn’t be law, it would merely be guidance. Even if you find yourself denominated as an extremist organisation, this will only affect you in so far as the government itself won’t engage with or fund you. “Try getting a bank account once you’ve been branded by Gove as an extremist,” George Galloway put in later, and said it with a plangent authenticity that made it sound as if he actually had tried getting a bank account and, sucks to be him, was still cash-only for the time being. The case of Galloway is just one of many sinkholes in this guidance. Gove congratulated him warmly on his election, paused to admire George’s rhetorical flourish, before underlining that “nothing in this definition [of extremism] would prevent any honourable member from making his case”. But let’s take a quick squiz at what Gove thinks extremism means: “The promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate the fundamental rights of others, or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results.” The day after Galloway was elected, the Conservative party sent out an urgent fundraising email reminding people that he’d “called for the deaths of British soldiers” and saying his was a “toxic brand of politics”. Is he protected from the extremist tag by dint of having been elected? Or because Gove has known him a long time? Or because he wasn’t saying that ideologically, it was more of a throwaway remark? “The devil is not just in the detail but in the enforcement,” said Anna Firth, the Conservative MP for Southend West, who wants to see an end to the “hate marches” (others know them as demonstrations for a ceasefire in Gaza). I’m not sure the devil would be able to locate any details, in an idea so endlessly interpretable: “violence” and “intolerance” are themselves quite different. How do you know if you’re creating a permissive environment? How do you know if you’re doing it on purpose? Angela Rayner’s response was studiedly collegiate and low-impact. She agreed that “the whole house should work together” on the “scourge of Islamophobia, neo-nazism [and] antisemitism”, and asked some quite baggy questions about why it’d taken the government 13 years to address all this. What followed from the backbenches were variations on this theme: what about me? If I agree with gender-critical organisations, or fought apartheid, or oppose the bombardment of Gaza, or wanted peace in Northern Ireland before that was fashionable, does that make me an extremist? No, no (I precis), you guys are all fine, Gove soothed. But why? If extremism is anyone creating a permissive environment for negating the fundamental rights of others, it’s pretty rum for, say, an anti-abortion campaigner to be automatically exempt from the label (as a “conservative religious group”) just because Gove says so. Peter Bottomley weighed in on the issue to randomly defend Kathleen Stock, the gender-critical academic. “Filling in the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is an important thing,” he said. One wonders what filling in that gap would look like, and who gets to decide. Far more immediately problematic, of course, is the point raised by a number of MPs (Alison Thewliss, Andy Slaughter), that this definition of extremism would take in some high-profile Conservative donors, Frank Hester’s comments, but also Paul Marshall, who recently liked a tweet that read: “Civil war is coming. Once the Muslims get to 15 to 20% of the population, the current cold civil war will turn hot.” It sounds pretty extreme. But which of us can say for sure that he liked it intentionally? Does the Conservative party itself meet its own definition of extremism? Gove was untroubled by any possible contradictions; he took Milton’s Areopagitica as his guide, which won’t tell him very much about white replacement theory, but if there’s ever any trouble from the Levellers, he’s your man. It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it, to have this from the levelling up secretary. Nobody ever knew what “levelling up” meant. It turns out his bailiwick is a bit wider than supposed, to take in “all the things which nobody can agree what they mean”. Explore more on these topics Michael Gove The politics sketch Counter-terrorism policy comment Share Reuse this content M ichael Gove stood before the house with his elaborately courteous mien dialled up to the max. The secretary for levelling up is so polite now that it reads as a kind of schoolboy humility as he gallops through his words, mindful of the great honour of his colleagues’ attention. “The United Kingdom is a success story,” he said, “a multinational, multi-ethnic, multifaith democracy, stronger because of our diversity.” This was the preface to the government’s new extremism guidelines , and there’s a world in which a celebration of diversity would be a reassuring starting point. That’s not, unfortunately, the world we’re in: the text of this guidance, as Gove describes it, doesn’t make a huge amount of sense, the subtext warps and weaves with every intervention, and the context makes a joke of the whole thing. Let’s not forget the lovely manners, though. So, nothing to worry about, folks, and barely anything to see: the new definition of extremism “will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech”. Even if it did, it wouldn’t be law, it would merely be guidance. Even if you find yourself denominated as an extremist organisation, this will only affect you in so far as the government itself won’t engage with or fund you. “Try getting a bank account once you’ve been branded by Gove as an extremist,” George Galloway put in later, and said it with a plangent authenticity that made it sound as if he actually had tried getting a bank account and, sucks to be him, was still cash-only for the time being. The case of Galloway is just one of many sinkholes in this guidance. Gove congratulated him warmly on his election, paused to admire George’s rhetorical flourish, before underlining that “nothing in this definition [of extremism] would prevent any honourable member from making his case”. But let’s take a quick squiz at what Gove thinks extremism means: “The promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate the fundamental rights of others, or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results.” The day after Galloway was elected, the Conservative party sent out an urgent fundraising email reminding people that he’d “called for the deaths of British soldiers” and saying his was a “toxic brand of politics”. Is he protected from the extremist tag by dint of having been elected? Or because Gove has known him a long time? Or because he wasn’t saying that ideologically, it was more of a throwaway remark? “The devil is not just in the detail but in the enforcement,” said Anna Firth, the Conservative MP for Southend West, who wants to see an end to the “hate marches” (others know them as demonstrations for a ceasefire in Gaza). I’m not sure the devil would be able to locate any details, in an idea so endlessly interpretable: “violence” and “intolerance” are themselves quite different. How do you know if you’re creating a permissive environment? How do you know if you’re doing it on purpose? Angela Rayner’s response was studiedly collegiate and low-impact. She agreed that “the whole house should work together” on the “scourge of Islamophobia, neo-nazism [and] antisemitism”, and asked some quite baggy questions about why it’d taken the government 13 years to address all this. What followed from the backbenches were variations on this theme: what about me? If I agree with gender-critical organisations, or fought apartheid, or oppose the bombardment of Gaza, or wanted peace in Northern Ireland before that was fashionable, does that make me an extremist? No, no (I precis), you guys are all fine, Gove soothed. But why? If extremism is anyone creating a permissive environment for negating the fundamental rights of others, it’s pretty rum for, say, an anti-abortion campaigner to be automatically exempt from the label (as a “conservative religious group”) just because Gove says so. Peter Bottomley weighed in on the issue to randomly defend Kathleen Stock, the gender-critical academic. “Filling in the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is an important thing,” he said. One wonders what filling in that gap would look like, and who gets to decide. Far more immediately problematic, of course, is the point raised by a number of MPs (Alison Thewliss, Andy Slaughter), that this definition of extremism would take in some high-profile Conservative donors, Frank Hester’s comments, but also Paul Marshall, who recently liked a tweet that read: “Civil war is coming. Once the Muslims get to 15 to 20% of the population, the current cold civil war will turn hot.” It sounds pretty extreme. But which of us can say for sure that he liked it intentionally? Does the Conservative party itself meet its own definition of extremism? Gove was untroubled by any possible contradictions; he took Milton’s Areopagitica as his guide, which won’t tell him very much about white replacement theory, but if there’s ever any trouble from the Levellers, he’s your man. It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it, to have this from the levelling up secretary. Nobody ever knew what “levelling up” meant. It turns out his bailiwick is a bit wider than supposed, to take in “all the things which nobody can agree what they mean”. Explore more on these topics Michael Gove The politics sketch Counter-terrorism policy comment Share Reuse this content M ichael Gove stood before the house with his elaborately courteous mien dialled up to the max. The secretary for levelling up is so polite now that it reads as a kind of schoolboy humility as he gallops through his words, mindful of the great honour of his colleagues’ attention. “The United Kingdom is a success story,” he said, “a multinational, multi-ethnic, multifaith democracy, stronger because of our diversity.” This was the preface to the government’s new extremism guidelines , and there’s a world in which a celebration of diversity would be a reassuring starting point. That’s not, unfortunately, the world we’re in: the text of this guidance, as Gove describes it, doesn’t make a huge amount of sense, the subtext warps and weaves with every intervention, and the context makes a joke of the whole thing. Let’s not forget the lovely manners, though. So, nothing to worry about, folks, and barely anything to see: the new definition of extremism “will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech”. Even if it did, it wouldn’t be law, it would merely be guidance. Even if you find yourself denominated as an extremist organisation, this will only affect you in so far as the government itself won’t engage with or fund you. “Try getting a bank account once you’ve been branded by Gove as an extremist,” George Galloway put in later, and said it with a plangent authenticity that made it sound as if he actually had tried getting a bank account and, sucks to be him, was still cash-only for the time being. The case of Galloway is just one of many sinkholes in this guidance. Gove congratulated him warmly on his election, paused to admire George’s rhetorical flourish, before underlining that “nothing in this definition [of extremism] would prevent any honourable member from making his case”. But let’s take a quick squiz at what Gove thinks extremism means: “The promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate the fundamental rights of others, or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results.” The day after Galloway was elected, the Conservative party sent out an urgent fundraising email reminding people that he’d “called for the deaths of British soldiers” and saying his was a “toxic brand of politics”. Is he protected from the extremist tag by dint of having been elected? Or because Gove has known him a long time? Or because he wasn’t saying that ideologically, it was more of a throwaway remark? “The devil is not just in the detail but in the enforcement,” said Anna Firth, the Conservative MP for Southend West, who wants to see an end to the “hate marches” (others know them as demonstrations for a ceasefire in Gaza). I’m not sure the devil would be able to locate any details, in an idea so endlessly interpretable: “violence” and “intolerance” are themselves quite different. How do you know if you’re creating a permissive environment? How do you know if you’re doing it on purpose? Angela Rayner’s response was studiedly collegiate and low-impact. She agreed that “the whole house should work together” on the “scourge of Islamophobia, neo-nazism [and] antisemitism”, and asked some quite baggy questions about why it’d taken the government 13 years to address all this. What followed from the backbenches were variations on this theme: what about me? If I agree with gender-critical organisations, or fought apartheid, or oppose the bombardment of Gaza, or wanted peace in Northern Ireland before that was fashionable, does that make me an extremist? No, no (I precis), you guys are all fine, Gove soothed. But why? If extremism is anyone creating a permissive environment for negating the fundamental rights of others, it’s pretty rum for, say, an anti-abortion campaigner to be automatically exempt from the label (as a “conservative religious group”) just because Gove says so. Peter Bottomley weighed in on the issue to randomly defend Kathleen Stock, the gender-critical academic. “Filling in the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is an important thing,” he said. One wonders what filling in that gap would look like, and who gets to decide. Far more immediately problematic, of course, is the point raised by a number of MPs (Alison Thewliss, Andy Slaughter), that this definition of extremism would take in some high-profile Conservative donors, Frank Hester’s comments, but also Paul Marshall, who recently liked a tweet that read: “Civil war is coming. Once the Muslims get to 15 to 20% of the population, the current cold civil war will turn hot.” It sounds pretty extreme. But which of us can say for sure that he liked it intentionally? Does the Conservative party itself meet its own definition of extremism? Gove was untroubled by any possible contradictions; he took Milton’s Areopagitica as his guide, which won’t tell him very much about white replacement theory, but if there’s ever any trouble from the Levellers, he’s your man. It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it, to have this from the levelling up secretary. Nobody ever knew what “levelling up” meant. It turns out his bailiwick is a bit wider than supposed, to take in “all the things which nobody can agree what they mean”. Explore more on these topics Michael Gove The politics sketch Counter-terrorism policy comment Share Reuse this content M ichael Gove stood before the house with his elaborately courteous mien dialled up to the max. The secretary for levelling up is so polite now that it reads as a kind of schoolboy humility as he gallops through his words, mindful of the great honour of his colleagues’ attention. “The United Kingdom is a success story,” he said, “a multinational, multi-ethnic, multifaith democracy, stronger because of our diversity.” This was the preface to the government’s new extremism guidelines , and there’s a world in which a celebration of diversity would be a reassuring starting point. That’s not, unfortunately, the world we’re in: the text of this guidance, as Gove describes it, doesn’t make a huge amount of sense, the subtext warps and weaves with every intervention, and the context makes a joke of the whole thing. Let’s not forget the lovely manners, though. So, nothing to worry about, folks, and barely anything to see: the new definition of extremism “will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech”. Even if it did, it wouldn’t be law, it would merely be guidance. Even if you find yourself denominated as an extremist organisation, this will only affect you in so far as the government itself won’t engage with or fund you. “Try getting a bank account once you’ve been branded by Gove as an extremist,” George Galloway put in later, and said it with a plangent authenticity that made it sound as if he actually had tried getting a bank account and, sucks to be him, was still cash-only for the time being. The case of Galloway is just one of many sinkholes in this guidance. Gove congratulated him warmly on his election, paused to admire George’s rhetorical flourish, before underlining that “nothing in this definition [of extremism] would prevent any honourable member from making his case”. But let’s take a quick squiz at what Gove thinks extremism means: “The promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate the fundamental rights of others, or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results.” The day after Galloway was elected, the Conservative party sent out an urgent fundraising email reminding people that he’d “called for the deaths of British soldiers” and saying his was a “toxic brand of politics”. Is he protected from the extremist tag by dint of having been elected? Or because Gove has known him a long time? Or because he wasn’t saying that ideologically, it was more of a throwaway remark? “The devil is not just in the detail but in the enforcement,” said Anna Firth, the Conservative MP for Southend West, who wants to see an end to the “hate marches” (others know them as demonstrations for a ceasefire in Gaza). I’m not sure the devil would be able to locate any details, in an idea so endlessly interpretable: “violence” and “intolerance” are themselves quite different. How do you know if you’re creating a permissive environment? How do you know if you’re doing it on purpose? Angela Rayner’s response was studiedly collegiate and low-impact. She agreed that “the whole house should work together” on the “scourge of Islamophobia, neo-nazism [and] antisemitism”, and asked some quite baggy questions about why it’d taken the government 13 years to address all this. What followed from the backbenches were variations on this theme: what about me? If I agree with gender-critical organisations, or fought apartheid, or oppose the bombardment of Gaza, or wanted peace in Northern Ireland before that was fashionable, does that make me an extremist? No, no (I precis), you guys are all fine, Gove soothed. But why? If extremism is anyone creating a permissive environment for negating the fundamental rights of others, it’s pretty rum for, say, an anti-abortion campaigner to be automatically exempt from the label (as a “conservative religious group”) just because Gove says so. Peter Bottomley weighed in on the issue to randomly defend Kathleen Stock, the gender-critical academic. “Filling in the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is an important thing,” he said. One wonders what filling in that gap would look like, and who gets to decide. Far more immediately problematic, of course, is the point raised by a number of MPs (Alison Thewliss, Andy Slaughter), that this definition of extremism would take in some high-profile Conservative donors, Frank Hester’s comments, but also Paul Marshall, who recently liked a tweet that read: “Civil war is coming. Once the Muslims get to 15 to 20% of the population, the current cold civil war will turn hot.” It sounds pretty extreme. But which of us can say for sure that he liked it intentionally? Does the Conservative party itself meet its own definition of extremism? Gove was untroubled by any possible contradictions; he took Milton’s Areopagitica as his guide, which won’t tell him very much about white replacement theory, but if there’s ever any trouble from the Levellers, he’s your man. It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it, to have this from the levelling up secretary. Nobody ever knew what “levelling up” meant. It turns out his bailiwick is a bit wider than supposed, to take in “all the things which nobody can agree what they mean”. M ichael Gove stood before the house with his elaborately courteous mien dialled up to the max. The secretary for levelling up is so polite now that it reads as a kind of schoolboy humility as he gallops through his words, mindful of the great honour of his colleagues’ attention. “The United Kingdom is a success story,” he said, “a multinational, multi-ethnic, multifaith democracy, stronger because of our diversity.” This was the preface to the government’s new extremism guidelines , and there’s a world in which a celebration of diversity would be a reassuring starting point. That’s not, unfortunately, the world we’re in: the text of this guidance, as Gove describes it, doesn’t make a huge amount of sense, the subtext warps and weaves with every intervention, and the context makes a joke of the whole thing. Let’s not forget the lovely manners, though. So, nothing to worry about, folks, and barely anything to see: the new definition of extremism “will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech”. Even if it did, it wouldn’t be law, it would merely be guidance. Even if you find yourself denominated as an extremist organisation, this will only affect you in so far as the government itself won’t engage with or fund you. “Try getting a bank account once you’ve been branded by Gove as an extremist,” George Galloway put in later, and said it with a plangent authenticity that made it sound as if he actually had tried getting a bank account and, sucks to be him, was still cash-only for the time being. The case of Galloway is just one of many sinkholes in this guidance. Gove congratulated him warmly on his election, paused to admire George’s rhetorical flourish, before underlining that “nothing in this definition [of extremism] would prevent any honourable member from making his case”. But let’s take a quick squiz at what Gove thinks extremism means: “The promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate the fundamental rights of others, or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results.” The day after Galloway was elected, the Conservative party sent out an urgent fundraising email reminding people that he’d “called for the deaths of British soldiers” and saying his was a “toxic brand of politics”. Is he protected from the extremist tag by dint of having been elected? Or because Gove has known him a long time? Or because he wasn’t saying that ideologically, it was more of a throwaway remark? “The devil is not just in the detail but in the enforcement,” said Anna Firth, the Conservative MP for Southend West, who wants to see an end to the “hate marches” (others know them as demonstrations for a ceasefire in Gaza). I’m not sure the devil would be able to locate any details, in an idea so endlessly interpretable: “violence” and “intolerance” are themselves quite different. How do you know if you’re creating a permissive environment? How do you know if you’re doing it on purpose? Angela Rayner’s response was studiedly collegiate and low-impact. She agreed that “the whole house should work together” on the “scourge of Islamophobia, neo-nazism [and] antisemitism”, and asked some quite baggy questions about why it’d taken the government 13 years to address all this. What followed from the backbenches were variations on this theme: what about me? If I agree with gender-critical organisations, or fought apartheid, or oppose the bombardment of Gaza, or wanted peace in Northern Ireland before that was fashionable, does that make me an extremist? No, no (I precis), you guys are all fine, Gove soothed. But why? If extremism is anyone creating a permissive environment for negating the fundamental rights of others, it’s pretty rum for, say, an anti-abortion campaigner to be automatically exempt from the label (as a “conservative religious group”) just because Gove says so. Peter Bottomley weighed in on the issue to randomly defend Kathleen Stock, the gender-critical academic. “Filling in the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is an important thing,” he said. One wonders what filling in that gap would look like, and who gets to decide. Far more immediately problematic, of course, is the point raised by a number of MPs (Alison Thewliss, Andy Slaughter), that this definition of extremism would take in some high-profile Conservative donors, Frank Hester’s comments, but also Paul Marshall, who recently liked a tweet that read: “Civil war is coming. Once the Muslims get to 15 to 20% of the population, the current cold civil war will turn hot.” It sounds pretty extreme. But which of us can say for sure that he liked it intentionally? Does the Conservative party itself meet its own definition of extremism? Gove was untroubled by any possible contradictions; he took Milton’s Areopagitica as his guide, which won’t tell him very much about white replacement theory, but if there’s ever any trouble from the Levellers, he’s your man. It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it, to have this from the levelling up secretary. Nobody ever knew what “levelling up” meant. It turns out his bailiwick is a bit wider than supposed, to take in “all the things which nobody can agree what they mean”. M ichael Gove stood before the house with his elaborately courteous mien dialled up to the max. The secretary for levelling up is so polite now that it reads as a kind of schoolboy humility as he gallops through his words, mindful of the great honour of his colleagues’ attention. “The United Kingdom is a success story,” he said, “a multinational, multi-ethnic, multifaith democracy, stronger because of our diversity.” This was the preface to the government’s new extremism guidelines , and there’s a world in which a celebration of diversity would be a reassuring starting point. That’s not, unfortunately, the world we’re in: the text of this guidance, as Gove describes it, doesn’t make a huge amount of sense, the subtext warps and weaves with every intervention, and the context makes a joke of the whole thing. Let’s not forget the lovely manners, though. So, nothing to worry about, folks, and barely anything to see: the new definition of extremism “will not affect gender-critical campaigners, those with conservative religious beliefs, trans activists, environmental protest groups, or those exercising their proper right to free speech”. Even if it did, it wouldn’t be law, it would merely be guidance. Even if you find yourself denominated as an extremist organisation, this will only affect you in so far as the government itself won’t engage with or fund you. “Try getting a bank account once you’ve been branded by Gove as an extremist,” George Galloway put in later, and said it with a plangent authenticity that made it sound as if he actually had tried getting a bank account and, sucks to be him, was still cash-only for the time being. The case of Galloway is just one of many sinkholes in this guidance. Gove congratulated him warmly on his election, paused to admire George’s rhetorical flourish, before underlining that “nothing in this definition [of extremism] would prevent any honourable member from making his case”. But let’s take a quick squiz at what Gove thinks extremism means: “The promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to negate the fundamental rights of others, or intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve these results.” The day after Galloway was elected, the Conservative party sent out an urgent fundraising email reminding people that he’d “called for the deaths of British soldiers” and saying his was a “toxic brand of politics”. Is he protected from the extremist tag by dint of having been elected? Or because Gove has known him a long time? Or because he wasn’t saying that ideologically, it was more of a throwaway remark? “The devil is not just in the detail but in the enforcement,” said Anna Firth, the Conservative MP for Southend West, who wants to see an end to the “hate marches” (others know them as demonstrations for a ceasefire in Gaza). I’m not sure the devil would be able to locate any details, in an idea so endlessly interpretable: “violence” and “intolerance” are themselves quite different. How do you know if you’re creating a permissive environment? How do you know if you’re doing it on purpose? Angela Rayner’s response was studiedly collegiate and low-impact. She agreed that “the whole house should work together” on the “scourge of Islamophobia, neo-nazism [and] antisemitism”, and asked some quite baggy questions about why it’d taken the government 13 years to address all this. What followed from the backbenches were variations on this theme: what about me? If I agree with gender-critical organisations, or fought apartheid, or oppose the bombardment of Gaza, or wanted peace in Northern Ireland before that was fashionable, does that make me an extremist? No, no (I precis), you guys are all fine, Gove soothed. But why? If extremism is anyone creating a permissive environment for negating the fundamental rights of others, it’s pretty rum for, say, an anti-abortion campaigner to be automatically exempt from the label (as a “conservative religious group”) just because Gove says so. Peter Bottomley weighed in on the issue to randomly defend Kathleen Stock, the gender-critical academic. “Filling in the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is an important thing,” he said. One wonders what filling in that gap would look like, and who gets to decide. Far more immediately problematic, of course, is the point raised by a number of MPs (Alison Thewliss, Andy Slaughter), that this definition of extremism would take in some high-profile Conservative donors, Frank Hester’s comments, but also Paul Marshall, who recently liked a tweet that read: “Civil war is coming. Once the Muslims get to 15 to 20% of the population, the current cold civil war will turn hot.” It sounds pretty extreme. But which of us can say for sure that he liked it intentionally? Does the Conservative party itself meet its own definition of extremism? Gove was untroubled by any possible contradictions; he took Milton’s Areopagitica as his guide, which won’t tell him very much about white replacement theory, but if there’s ever any trouble from the Levellers, he’s your man. It’s a bit ironic, isn’t it, to have this from the levelling up secretary. Nobody ever knew what “levelling up” meant. It turns out his bailiwick is a bit wider than supposed, to take in “all the things which nobody can agree what they mean”. Explore more on these topics Michael Gove The politics sketch Counter-terrorism policy comment Share Reuse this content Michael Gove The politics sketch Counter-terrorism policy comment |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.